May 31, 2012 | Activism, Events & Assassinations
http://youtu.be/-xa1zduo4cg
I am very sorry to report that the Camelot witness, Ed Laughrin has died suddenly of a heart attack. Apparently, he died on May 3rd. This has been reported to me tonight from Stew Webb who was in fairly regular communication with him.
He was contacted by Ed’s wife who said that Ed had received a threat over the phone, threatening him and his wife. and shortly after that had a massive heart attack. She called Stew tonight to give him the news.
Stew is looking into the situation. He said that Ed’s wife is not staying at the house at this time as she does not feel safe there.
Please join me in sending loving energy and thanks to this brave man, who toward the end of his life came forward to give evidence on the ballistics of the Kennedy assassination and was also investigating other situations that he found suspicious.
Ed was a profoundly principled man and an American patriot who dedicated his life to his country. He had a great admiration for John Kennedy and wanted to see the truth come out about the assassination as well as many other matters.

For those that would like to listen to the interview here is the link.
Thank you Ed for your service to humanity.
I will post updates to this story as they are received.
Thursday, 17 May 2012 21:43
Written by Kerry Cassidy
Ed Laughrin is a retired ex-Navy/intelligence specialist with a background in ballistics who in his spare time has thoroughly investigated the Kennedy assassination. In this recorded phone call he describes the exact trajectory of the bullets fired during the event.
This audio interview was recorded without pretense or preparation due to an impending operation Ed was about to undergo where he wanted to make sure that his testimony was taken by someone who would document for the public the areas of his research.
From that point we moved onto the Challenger disaster because as it happens, he was onboard the first Navy vessel to encounter the downed capsule when it hit the water after the crash. What he reveals here is clear evidence of supreme negligence on the part of NASA which leads to the possible conclusion that there was malice and intent in this lack of action to save our astronauts.
This testimony brings into sharp relief evidence of a organization working toward a particular agenda that does not safeguard the well being of Americans and specifically our astronauts under circumstances whereby the agenda they are working with takes precendence. This is unconscionable.
Prior evidence of the hidden mission behind NASA is well documented by Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara in their groundbreaking book “Dark Mission“. Highly recommended.
Given the rough quality of this impromptu testimony with regard to the Challenger disaster evidence of negligence obviously requires a great deal more investigation. I encourage researchers to take this testimony and investigate further. There must be others out there who were on board the Navy vessel and witnessed the events causing their ship to be turned away from attempting to rescue the astronauts at that critical juncture.
As we move into the future whistleblowers from within the Matrix who have witnessed events where the agenda of the PTB swings into play and alters the world from that point forward should begin to surface. History was made but it was also witnessed. Those witnesses are everywhere. They are your brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers… As awareness grows they will begin to come forward and the real truth behind the curtain of secrecy will be revealed provided they have the courage to realize that they have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Link to video of Challenger disaster
Kerry Cassidy
Project Camelot
November 6, 2011
Ed Laughrin – Audio Interview
Kennedy Ballistics and the Challenger Crash
October 9, 2011
Ed Laughrin (Ed): …[over] this… material, and use your own judgment, because I don’t want to put you or anybody associated with you, in trouble, [in] any danger. And also too, I was sort of taken back with your audio [interview] with Gordon Novel, because he knew a lot about this.
Kerry Cassidy (Kerry): Right.
Ed: And he said it was a perfect operation. Well, you might say, yes. But I would never laugh or joke about the seriousness of this. I remember when I was 11 years old, and… when it happened, and I grew up in the Mahoning Valley. And, well, in 1960, I was just a wee little kid, eight years old. And I sat on my dad’s shoulders and there’s quite a turnout in Youngstown, and we listened to John F. Kennedy’s speech. So, I was close enough that I saw him. I looked at him. I heard him loud and clear, and I was cheering like everybody else. But, anyhow, maybe that should be up to your own personal discretion. ____
Kerry: Okay. Well, at this moment, because we are recording and because you’ve come to me, this is… what I’d like to do, is just qualify this recording and say this is Sunday, October 9th, 2011.
Ed: Okay. [Correct.]
Kerry: And your name… Are you coming out under your name? Do you want your name on the material or not?
Ed: Yeah. Might as well take credit for it. And I’ve already been threatened. People know who I am. [But who…]
Kerry: Please state your name.
Ed: It’s Edward Gerard Laughrin.
Kerry: Okay. And if you give a slight background as to who you are and how you got involved, before you explain what the information is.
Ed: Well, I’m [a] retired civil service and I’m a former United States Navy sailor. And I’ve been around the world quite a bit. And I was engaged in two special operational groups, during my time in the United States Navy. Prior to that, I was involved with aviation, general aviation. And I enjoyed flying and I was into that, and I did a little stint as a skydiver. And my educational background — I hold a bachelor’s degree in human relations. Okay? And… [I got started…]
Kerry: And how did you get involved in this… in investigating this material?
Ed: Well, my father was a World War II Navy veteran. And he was one of the first ‘Seabees,’ and he and some of his veteran friends, on the 22nd of November, when this took place in 1953… As a kid, I’d hang out with him. I’d go places with my dad, naturally I would. And [heed] me up [when] it was a topic of conversation. And a lot of World War II veterans view the Zapruder film. And they noticed that the President, when he was hit [by] the fatal gunshot, that his head recoiled back. And any of them that were in combat and witnessed or had to take actions against our enemies through World War II… And even our G.I.s — a head shot to the front, always there’s a recoil back. It will snap your head back.
And that result is a mystery. Lee Harvey Oswald was always… was he really the one, the shooter? Because the sniper’s nest didn’t really make a lot of sense in the Texas School Book Depository. There’s a question that should be asked about that. When President Kennedy came up Houston Street, to the intersection of the Elm, that was a perfect shot, from the Texas School Book Depository — straight down, unimpeded, clear shot on Houston Street.
Another opportunity to take the shot would have been right at the intersection turn onto Elm Street. No shot was taken. There were credible witnesses that knew that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing on the corner of Houston and Elm Street. And then, after the presidential limousine passed by, he went up to the second floor break room. Now, it’s my opinion that the Texas School Book Depository was an observational platform. And… because it’s located where it could coordinate a sniper team.
So, [sighs] what I have come up with, is based on Dr. Crenshaw’s work, ‘Conspiracy of Silence,’ in my review of that book and thoroughly going over it. And also in the book, ‘Conspiracy of Silence,’ there are morgue pictures, post-mortem of President John F. Kennedy, and there are untainted. They are actual. And they denote a wound in the neck. And then also, fragments on the back of the neck in the upper shoulder midline. And also a small dime-sized entrance point above the right eyebrow, just below the hairline, on the right side. And then the catastrophic exit wound. So, that is obviously… you have gunshots in the front. Now, the wound in the front of the neck, it so happens to be a tracheotomy, because they opened that wound up, to ventilate the President. [coughs] Excuse me. [clears throat]
But I’ve worked everything out from an aerial picture. And part of my education is, I think of all the [firings in it], to give ballistic analysis, because I was trained in the Navy, and I went through course studies as an intelligence specialist, which dealt with aerial pictures. So, what I did, I blew this aerial picture up, scaled it, and worked the problem, based on [morgue] pictures from Parkland Hospital. Now, the sequence of shots are as follows. And I think I’m relatively pretty accurate on this.
When the presidential limousine came up to, up Houston and made a left-hand [a tree’s yard] turn onto Elm Street, the first shot that was fired, was from an upper floor area on the rooftop of the building, which is right adjacent on the same side of the street, on Elm Street. That bullet flew down the centerline with good elevation, good angle, unimpeded, clear line of shot, intentionally trying to hit the President in the back of the head. It missed. It passed over President Kennedy’s right shoulder and it struck Governor Connally. That’s bullet number one.
Bullet number two was fired directly in front of the limousine, and there’s a triple highway underpass bypass, and there’s railroad tracks there, right down on the center line in front of the limousine, with good elevation, clear line of shot. That’s the second bullet that was fired. It struck President Kennedy in the neck. [That’s number two.] Okay. President Kennedy raised his arms, and he looked in the direction of Mrs. Kennedy. And Mrs. Kennedy leaned in.
The third shot was fired, but it was pulled. Direct miss. Because the sniper on the grassy knoll did not want to penetrate President Kennedy’s right side of his head and have the bullet pass into Mrs. Kennedy. It missed. It struck the curb. And you can denote… you can go put your finger on the… on the nick on the curb. It corresponds.
Okay. Bullet number four penetrated to the right. [Pfizer.] And you can see it if you run it frame-by-frame, and the [Pfizer] is in the upright, right above a Secret Service agent in the limousine. Okay, that’s bullet number four.
Bullet number five is the kill shot. It strikes John F. Kennedy above the right eye, below the hairline. Those are the ballistics. Those are facts. That’s what happened. And there you have it. One, two, three, four, [and] five.
Kerry: Okay. But, what I… if… correct me if I’m wrong here, but basically, you are telling me where you think the bullets went. You’re not telling me who shot them.
Ed: Who shot them? I gave you positions, which just automatically, this should be strong evidence to clear the name of Lee Harvey Oswald, that he is not the sniper. Absolutely not. Now, I can’t prove this one way or another, but in my research and going over a lot of material, there’s a guy by the name of Sarti, and that’s on the internet, and he was a Corsican Sicilian. And then also, I talked to an individual. I’m not going to give you his name. And he’s 85 years old. And like your friend, Command Master Sergeant Bob Dean, he also was a command master sergeant in the United States Army. And he’s been there, and he went over this material with me. And he confirms the location of the kill shot, because he’s been there when he was in the Army, in Army Intelligence. And he’s 85, and he’s a resident of Florida. I spent three hours with him. And then also, I have, I know an individual who’s a Navy SEAL, who has gone over this material, and he agrees with it, based on ward pictures from Parkland Hospital, thanks to Dr. Crenshaw.
So, it’s pretty tight-knit here. I mean, there’s no room for sloth. But the blowback on this material and this work, is that it… I’m sorry to say this, but I absolutely cannot agree with the Warren Commission or Arlen Specter and the single-bullet [theory]. It’s just not factual. It just didn’t happen that way. Based on the entrance and the exit wounds on President Kennedy. And it was a horrific, horrific event. It’s absolute treason, even to this day, to murder a president, the President of the United States of America. But I understand, through a lot of my other work and everything… Well, this is basically my work — ballistics.
But all the factors, Kerry, that have come into play, all the enemies that John F. Kennedy happened to accumulate during his time in the White House, all came down on him, all at once. And that was in the Dealey Plaza on 22nd of November, 1963. And you can see today, currently, right now, that the American people are getting quite fed up with the Powers That Be. And basically, I think it’s time for people to try and get their country back by peaceful protest. And this, in and of itself, should be a motivator too, to bring back what our Founding Fathers intended for all of us, as Americans.
So, do you have any questions Kerry, for me, in addition to this? ___ [of mine. Go ahead.]
Kerry: Well, first of all, are you familiar with the work of Robert Morningstar?
Ed: The name’s familiar, but I can’t stay I’m really familiar with any of his work. No, I’m not. _____
Kerry: Okay. Well, I did an interview with him quite some time ago. We talked in brief about the Kennedy assassination. He’s been investigating it for years and has also written books about them. There… I believe that you may have some information that might be useful to some other researchers, but to tell you the truth, you don’t really have anything, that I can tell, that is more over-the-top than what is generally known at this point. No one believes there was a lone gunman, unless they’re just part of the mainstream and they’re just so programmed, they really can’t see straight.
Ed: Yeah. You’re right there. Yeah.
Kerry: So, at this moment, there’s no doubt that it was a conspiracy. There’s no doubt that there was a number of individuals and organizations involved. Certainly the CIA, certainly the mob at the time. And…
Ed: Yeah.
Kerry: And from what I understand, there could be some other elements including the Israelis. But at this moment, what you were telling me doesn’t really constitute anything too [radical]. So, if you keep it quiet, it’s when they bother you. It’s when they’re trying to intimidate you, just to get you to shut up or just to mess with you, because they’ve got nothing better to do with themselves.
Ed: Well, _______. The one thing that concerns me, I agree with your good advice that you’re giving me. But Phil Schneider — why in the world did they knock him off? I mean, I’ve listened to him, and I… about deep military underground bases [so on and so forth].
Kerry: Right.
Ed: And then [they turned around]. And then I found out that Phil Schneider was left-handed. And he died from a gunshot wound of the right temple, Kerry. And there’s no possible way that he shot himself if you’re left-handed in the right temple. It’s quite awkward.
Kerry: I mean, look. If you’re a ballistics expert of sorts… I’m not sure if that’s…
Ed: Of sorts. Of sorts. I’ve studied it.
Kerry: That can be very useful at looking at evidence across the board. There are many, many people that have been suicided in various ways. And so, I… Why don’t you start a YouTube channel and start going over all the cases out there, not just the Kennedy assassination, from the point of view of ballistics.
Ed: That would give me something to do. That would give me something to do, to pass my time as a retired civil servant. [laughs] ___________
Kerry: Well, yeah. If you have expertise like that, it can be valuable to the mainstream.
Ed: Well, I have a knack for things. I have a way of cutting down and being… can discern and unravel things. And look for the truth, like you do. But we all do it in a different way.
Kerry: Sure.
Ed: Yeah. Yeah, we do. But, anyhow, I’ve given you complete ballistics. And I have talked to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about this, and they have all this material. But if… And then the individual that I talked to, I don’t feel comfortable telling you his complete name. But…
Kerry: That’s fine.
Ed: He said that they were picked up, this Sarti… Lucien Sarti. He was involved with [coverup].
Kerry: Yes. I’m familiar with the name Sarti. I’m familiar with this.
Ed: You’re familiar with him? Okay. But, they were picked up by the Dallas Police. And there are other witnesses that saw a man in front of the limousine coming down off that highway underpass/overpass and then the railroad tracks looped around. They loop around from… in front there. And then they go past the grassy knoll onward. But I have [came across] E. Howard Hunt for his deathbed confession. This was known, according to him, as ;Operation 40,’ the Big Event. And he considers himself a benchwarmer. And, from what I understand, from the internet, which is in public domain, there were like 27 individuals involved in it. And then also, another one that’s very, very dirty, is Lyndon Baines Johnson. And that’s from testimony from his mistress, that she came out with all that.
Kerry: Yes.
Ed: But, they were murdering people left and right over this thing. _________
Kerry: Right. And, I mean, you’re asking why they killed Phil Schneider. I mean, Phil Schneider came forward at a time with key information. Had he come forward at this time, when the information was already out there en masse, maybe he wouldn’t have been knocked off.
Ed: Yeah.
Kerry: But obviously, he came forward at a certain juncture. We’re at a different time right now, and there’s the knowledge about the things he talked about, are well known in part because of him. And so, they do knock off people. They kind of pick and choose, I guess, who they decide to do that to. I like to think that they’re not doing that quite as much anymore, because they really have little to lose, because it’s becoming pretty obvious, what’s going on.
Ed: Right. Yeah.
Kerry: In some ways, they are still threatening people, because I’ve been threatened, and other people I know agree, but there’s a lot more leeway at this time. And especially with regard to past events. So, in the sense of what you’re talking [about], we can put this out, as it is, as an audio recording. It’s going to be fairly rough, but it is…
Ed: Well, what I’d like to do, I’d really like to get through this ordeal, because I’m overwhelmed with what I have to go through, to get myself back in shape. It’s not going to be very pleasant, but I’m just going to have to just do this. But I’m going to wait later on. Once I get back up to feeling right, and then I can pursue this and maybe get some help from others that are far more computer-savvy in my area than I am.
Kerry: Okay.
Ed: But I think maybe you should just take this raw, the way it is, because I gave you the sequence of shots, and you won’t… I’ve never heard the sequence of shots, and I have studied this and pondered it, and laid awake at night. I’ve gotten up in the middle of the night and worked on it, and gone over everything. And it’s all because that I was eight years old, I sat on my dad’s shoulders at a rally for John F. Kennedy in Youngstown, Ohio. And… I was for Kennedy. And I think that was horrific the way he just got himself destroyed in Dallas. And my opinion is, that it’s high treason and there’s no statute for the limitations on treason.
Kerry: [laughs]
Ed: Absolutely, yeah.
Kerry: Okay. I hear you. All right. Well, well said. Let me say this. As far as your ballistics background, can you go into more detail as to why you’re… why you think you’re sort of a semi-expert in this field. In other words what was your exact training?
Ed: Well, when I went in the United States Navy, I had a choice. I went through a horrific de force process, because I was a fool and an idiot to get married at the age of 22. What was I thinking? But, I… It just didn’t work out. And after a nine-year period, I was getting a little on the hot… upper end. And it all just fell apart. So, I was there alone in my apartment one night, feeling sorry for myself. And I got to thinking, there’s gotta be some adventure for me. And my first thoughts were, ‘Hey, you know the French Foreign Legion might be a good way to go. You know, on second thought, I don’t speak French, so I’d be at a disadvantage. I’d have to be an extremely fast learner.’
And my second choice, actually, was the United States Navy, because my dad always used to tell me, when I was kid growing up, and my [father] used to call me ‘Edward.’ And he said, ‘Edward, if you’re ever at loose ends, just take time out and join the Navy. Be a fleet sailor and see the world.’ So, I did. And I was 30 years old when I went in, and absolutely out of shape. And I went through Great Lakes [Navy Station]. And I was in… the ‘state flags and sailors.’ You wouldn’t know what that means. And then we had ‘Triple Threat’ with us. And I sort of represented the State of Maryland. And we were like a parade unit. We were pretty fancy-looking recruits.
But I transitioned from that and graduated from boot camp. And to my great surprise, I was in extremely good physical shape and completely focused on the Navy, completely committed. And there was our division officer. There were two of us that were selected. And there was another sailor and myself. They wanted us to go to BUD School. Are you familiar with that term, ‘BUD School,’ Kerry?
Kerry: [chuckles] No.
Ed: Well, they wanted to transform me into a United States Navy SEAL. Well, it so happened, before I got on the bus to leave for boot camp, I [came across] Jimmy. He’s a retired Navy SEAL. And, well anyhow, he… It was too adventurous, as far as my mother was concerned, because she was a cousin to his mother, and really worried his parents quite a bit, what Jimmy was doing, especially during the Vietnam War. Because he used to take [reaper eaters] [24:59] and go in and recon the Hai Phong harbor, and things of that nature. And I promised my mother — but I thought it was a real long shot. Why would they want me to be a Navy Seal? Really. Well, for some odd reason, they thought they… They pick you. You don’t pick them, more or less. You could put a request in for it. But I was one of these characters that was getting picked on. So I declined it.
And then I went through Gunner’s Mate ‘A’ School and did quite well in that. And then I was assigned my ship. And it was the U.S.S. Aubrey Fitch (FFG-34). And I was a member of Destroyer Squadron 8 in Mayport, Florida. And our claim-to-fame was, we were the first Navy vessel to go on-scene when the Challenger exploded. And we picked up debris down there. And we all have [night] certificates and I still have mine. Presidential commendation from Ronald Reagan. But I’ve been to El Salvador… special operations, Operation Blue Light. I’ve been involved in the Persian Gulf. And I’m a Blue Nose. I’ve been up over the Arctic Ocean or Arctic Circle, rather. And I’m also a Shellback. I’ve crossed the Equator and I sailed down through the Suez Canal. And I’ve been to Karachi, and I don’t recommend it. We were there for R&R for a week. And you have to be very careful. And you be very careful when you’re in India. The Karachi’s a heck of a lot worse, let me tell you. This [is the way it is] today.
So, as I went along, I requested another additional school in the Navy. And it was intelligence specialist. So, I went through that. And… well, anyhow, the reason why I really didn’t make a career out of the United States Navy [is] my mother, we discovered she had Parkinson’s Disease. And she really wanted me to come home, because I only got two weeks’ leave out of the year, so I carried a lot of leave. We get thirty days a year. And I went… I was a member of the Naval Reserve. And then I met my second wife. And things are fine and I settled down in… here in Warren, Pennsylvania. [chuckles, clears his throat] So, that’s my background.
Kerry: Okay…
Ed: But I also hold a Federal Fire Arms License too, and I’m a… I do instruct as a fire arms instructor. So, I’m familiar with weapons. I’m familiar with a variety of handguns, rifles and [because I was] in the Navy, I’m very familiar with assault weapons. ______
Kerry: Okay. It sounds like maybe you’re a little modest in terms of calling yourself a possible expert. It sounds like you are an expert.
Ed: Well, I’ll tell you what. With the new modern technology and everything, you can’t really miss a target with some of the advanced weapons that we have today. And computers. It’s not like old school. And… it’s just absolutely amazing, how they’ve advanced on a lot of stuff. I was watching a YouTube video the other day about this new camouflage that they have, special forces, our guys. And it actually refracts light, someway, somehow. Must be nano or something, but it actually is sort of similar to… oh, you’ve seen the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, ‘Terminator.’ Or no, it’s not. Yeah. The first… not actually ‘Terminator.’ I’ve got my movies mixed up. ‘Predator,’ with the alien that could cause himself to be relatively invisible.
Kerry: Right, yes. Yes.
Ed: You have that [fight there] in Central America. And Jesse Ventura got zapped in the chest with a laser. [laughs] But it’s similar to that, but the technology is so advanced, all the way around. I mean, completely, and weaponry. And then I know another individual who states that our military now has the capability to shoot somebody with ultraviolet laser. And what that does is, it causes your heart to stop. And you’re done. And you never see it. So… And I have to take issue with a lot of this stuff. I have a problem with a lot of this weapons technology. I mean, we should only use and get involved in wars — it’s my personal belief — is if we’re really threatened, our way of life. And for defensive purposes only. We should never be out running around, looking for a war. But there again, that’s the military industrial complex.
Kerry: Right.
Ed: Because peace is cheaper… or not cheaper, more expensive. Excuse me. Peace is more expensive than war.
Kerry: Yes.
Ed: For some unknown, crazy reason.
Kerry: Okay. So…
Ed: [sighs]
Kerry: Let’s get back to this… to some of the things that you’ve done. One of the questions I have is the Challenger explosion.
Ed: Okay.
Kerry: You said you got a piece of it. And I wonder if you ever tried to investigate whether that was a natural occurrence.
Ed: Well, I didn’t really get a piece of the Challenger. We got quite a bit of it. It was spread out. And what we were doing on that day, we were coming up, we were on an exercise, our squadron. And other Navy ships. And we go down there, what’s called a ‘PACFIRE’ in the Caribbean. And we did a missile shoot. And at that time, we had a Mark 13 missile launcher, so we fired it, at target drones. And anti-submarine warfare. That was roughly about a week’s worth. It was a work-up of exercises and drills. And we were coming up the coast. And right at the time, we were right off of the Kennedy Space Center. And we went on-deck and we tracked the ascension of the Challenger on our surface search radar. And all of a sudden, it blew up. I mean, and that was it. And then, you have the booster rockets were out of control, but they can detonate them from the ground, to destroy them.
So we tracked all the debris, and it took us twenty minutes to pull up on the crew compartment. And we had them on our surface search. And it floated for about ten minutes. And when we pulled up on it, where we were at, the ocean was relatively pretty clear and we could see the windows in the front, because it was sinking stern-first, or the back of the compartment. And we had a couple divers on-board, and we weren’t allowed to put them over the side. But the depth there on our fathometer was 90 feet. And we pulled up on the crew compartment. They submerged about 40. And then, through the grapevine in the Navy, after they waited forty-some days and pulled the bodies out, they couldn’t bail out of that thing. And there were a couple of survivors, as we found out later from Navy divers. Because there’s a grapevine. We know. I mean, there’s like, whatever. Like… ___________
Kerry: Okay. What are you saying? You’re saying that the seven people who died, some of them survived?
Ed: They survived the initial impact, because the… we got the aspect. When it reached terminal velocity, when it came out, I was… its ordinance dropped. It was blown free, because that’s the compartment where the crew is at, is extremely strong. It’s like a diving bell, more or less. And it fell and it hit on the left side. And the door was sprung, but they tried to jettison the door. From what we did understand, and we did see movement when we pulled up on-scene. There was movement, because the windows were pointed up and it was sinking. The back end was going under, and then we were pinging them with sonar, to get their location. And we had a medium range sonar on my ship. And they were definitely at forty feet. And they were decompressing. We could see air escaping.
But… then we were ordered off because there was an AGI, and what an AGI is, it was Russian. And it looks like a fishing trawler, but they’re intelligence-gathering ships. And we had to an intercept on the AGI, keep them out of that restricted area. Because there was quite a lot of debris that was thrown free. And you’re talking manuals. Some… There were several manuals. And one of the gloves we picked up, that they use on their suits, when they go outside into the space environment. And we would pick up debris and we also recovered a lot of assemblies, because it’s made out of titanium. And it was amazing, because we actually recovered the right landing gear assembly. And then we would run it into the cape, and they’d offload it, photograph everything. And then we’d go back out. But the USS Aubrey Fitch (FFG‑34) was the first ship and that was the ship I served on, that was first on-scene during the Challenger accident.
Kerry: Okay. But, there seems to be some confusion as to whether or not, what the astronauts actually died of, and also, from John Lear…
Ed: [coughs]
Kerry: …I recall that the Challenger situation was actually, that there is some unknown information out there about it, possibly some intended effects of actions that were taken on the ground, before the thing took off.
Ed: Well, the thing…
Kerry: Do you know anything about what, why the astronauts were not rescued?
Ed: They were written off, as far as we could determine. And it was poor judgment by Mr. Truly. ______
Kerry: Okay. They were written off by us?
Ed: Yeah. They gave up on them. They assumed, because of the catastrophic explosion, they were dead. And then we desperately, my commanding officer, gave them all the information. ‘We think there are survivors.’ And then we were ordered off. And then a lot of the guys… ________
Kerry: So, you were there first on… wait, wait, wait. You were there first on the scene.
Ed: Correct.
Kerry: In theory, you could have helped recover the bodies or help get people to safety, but you were ordered off.
Ed: Yes, ma’am. Yeah, we were. Yeah. That’s the way it was.
Kerry: So why, as an investigator, have you never, like, gone down this road at all?
Ed: Well, because… I mean, you can’t really take on an error that NASA made. And that was their big blunder, because they didn’t have a real picture of the situation out there and they weren’t paying attention to a United States Navy ship.
Kerry: Why would they not do that, though? I mean, in other words, I’m Project Camelot, right? So, I’m looking for conspiracies everywhere I turn. Some would say that’s foolish and others would say that you’d be foolish not to look for that, at this point in this juncture of our history. So, what I’m asking you is, if your ship was there, if you were first on the scene, if you were on the crew, didn’t something strike you as being wrong, and not just because of human error or foolhardy judgments, because you’ve got people in NASA who are… they’re sending astronauts out into space. They have to have good judgment to even get their jobs. So…
Ed: I understand that, Kerry. But they didn’t have any good judgment. Their judgment flew out the window that morning at 11:35[am], roughly, or whenever. [Plus, the actual…]
Kerry: Okay. Is it possible they were under orders? They were under orders to tell you to leave the scene?
Ed: Well, I can only tell you how it was and we had to go chase after an AGI, a Russian trawler, and we were told to pull back. However, I have heard stories, we’ll call them, that they had an in-… an on-board computer. They do have black boxes. And the Challenger had one. And it was reported that they were actually, saw us, [some part of our] ship pulling up, and they were quite excited about rescue. And they heard us, because we did a back-down, and what that is, we threw our propeller… It’s like an umbrella. And you can shift the blades — it’s hydraulic — and you get cavitation… when you’re on forward momentum, and then you reverse the propeller, and it bites backwards. It will… [the thing] turns inside-out. All hydraulic. And you cavitate the ship, and it will vibrate.
On their flight recorders in the Challenger, they heard our cavitation. And all that stuff we sealed up and put away. But I’m getting my certificate out, and I’ll just briefly read this to you. And it… manned flight awareness certificate of appreciation is what it is for NASA, presented to Edward G. Laughrin. ‘The appreciation of your dedication to the critical task you performed in support of presidential commission investigating the Space Shuttle Challenger accident. Your valuable contribution assisted in identifying the actions required to return the national space transportation system to flight status.’ And… there you have it. They…
Kerry: Okay. But in reality, that’s… that sounds like a ticket to be quiet.
Ed: A ticket to be quiet? Eh, maybe, I guess. [laughs]
Kerry: Okay. [chuckles] Uh-huh.
Ed: I don’t…
Kerry: No, I mean, Look, I have a commendation from some work I did as a contractor over at JPL. So, I understand how they dole these kind of things out. Look, in terms of what goes on with your being there, you said that there was an ‘AGI.’ Is that how you termed it? A Russian trawler?
Ed: A Russian trawler. AGI. Correct.
Kerry: Now, what was the role of the Russian trawler. Were they trying to help? Why were they there?
Ed: No. Not at all. What they do, they would monitor our activities here at the Cape. They did have real special interest in filming the… anything that NASA would launch, from shuttles to satellites to whatever they do, whatever launch, launches they happen to have. And they were always trailing us. When we go out on deployment, we’d go out as individual ships and then we’d form up into a battle group. And they would follow us around. [laughs]
Kerry: Okay. So, but at this point, you’re the first ship on the scene, and then there’s a Russian trawler, and you’re told to leave the scene. Does the Russian trawler follow you, or do they stay on the scene?
Ed: We backed them off. We forced them out of the area. They were warned off. ‘Leave.’
Kerry: So, you guys left. Who went in, when you left?
Ed: Well, there was like a lull right there, because they had to gather their resources. And our _____
Kerry: Why would they do that? I mean, that’s not… it doesn’t sound intelligent, if you’ve got a…
Ed: They’re not prepared for accidents. They were caught flat-footed on this thing.
Kerry: Right. But you were there. You were there and able to assist, but you were turned away. Why were you turned away? Did you ever not report that there was something very suspicious about… If I’m in a distressful situation, I see a ship in the vicinity, and that ship turns away and goes away, I’m going to be extremely upset.
Ed: Well, the deal was, in the Navy, we have to follow orders.
Kerry: Sure.
Ed: And it’s a chain of command.
Kerry: But you are able to question an order that is illegal or…
Ed: Not really. Well, if you can really prove it’s illegal, you have the Unified Code of Military Justice, but you have to have witnesses. But by and large, you have to follow an order. You don’t ask why _________
Kerry: Okay. But you were… How many people were on your ship?
Ed: My frigate… we had roughly about 185. ______
Kerry: So, 185 people were witnesses, right?
Ed: Correct. Not of all them. Some of them down in the engine room are the cooks and store keepers.
Kerry: Okay.
Ed: They weren’t really privy, but everybody, all hands on deck, when we were recovering wreckage and debris. So everybody basically chipped in and they were aware…
Kerry: I see.
Ed: …after the event. _____
Kerry: I mean, is there some danger that your ship posed to the survivors of the Challenger?
Ed: No. None at all. No. Negative. No. Not at all.
Kerry: Okay. So then, I don’t understand, in good conscience, if I’m captain of a ship and I… and the Challenger with these very famous astronauts is in danger, how in good conscience, do I turn my ship around and leave?
Ed: You follow orders. Now, [that’s] orders.
Kerry: And never question, never question, never investigate further?
Ed: No. You don’t. You follow orders. And that’s your primary objective, serving in the armed forces. And I was an enlisted man. So, my thoughts belong to me. But… _________.
Kerry: Okay. What about among your crewmates? Did you guys ever discuss the idea that possibly the… and the fact that you guys were turned away, that that was the last chance that those people had, to stay alive?
Ed: Well, we’re human beings, too. And you’re correct. We did discuss it. And it was disturbing to us.
Kerry: Wow.
Ed: It was. It bothered a lot of us. I mean, all of us. It bothered us. It was horrific.
Kerry: That’s incredible.
Ed: Yes, it was. Well, you see, our Navy, the admiral up there in Mayport, turned us over to NASA, to take our orders from them. But then, our duty was to protect the scene. And there’s the North Atlantic drift, and a lot of material was drifting up from… up towards the Northeast. It started to spread out. And… I mean, it was just… I mean, the sea was just littered with debris. And then the heavier objects sunk down to 90 feet, because that was the depth on our fathometer we were pinging off the sea bed.
Kerry: Right.
Ed: And you know, and I don’t know if you, being from California there, you’d probably… Have you ever done scuba diving? If you have, you know you can go to 90 feet. You just have to be careful on your decompression up. ________
Kerry: So are you saying… Maybe I don’t understand, because I have done scuba diving, but I’m… I don’t know much about it. I only tried it once, I think.
Ed: Yeah.
Kerry: But at any rate, not here in California. Are you saying that the Challenger landed in water that was 90 feet deep?
Ed: Yeah, which is… They landed short of the continental drop-off…
Kerry: Right.
Ed: …that runs out [clears throat]. Yeah. Because we, they could not have… Well, they could have recovered them, but they was in relatively shallow water, 90 feet.
Kerry: Well then… Okay. So… Even here again… So, there had to be some pretty significant evidence that they were able to recover, right?
Ed: Well, we took our orders. And then they… we did what we did. We followed orders. We were [all]… Well, I’ll be honest with you. It was sort of an assumption that they were gonna, they had a search-and-rescue operation within their capability at NASA. Now, it turns out, Kerry, they do not. They did not. They had nothing going for them. They had to rely on the Navy and the Coast Guard. They had no capability, at all. Their only way was to… like, if something went snafu through the vehicle, to turn around and land. [laughs] And… ________
Kerry: Well, I guess I’m not understanding… Maybe I just don’t get what you’re talking about. Are you saying NASA or the space shuttle itself had no capability to deal with a crashed… craft?
Ed: Of that catastrophic event… there’s no way. I mean, they were done. I mean, they had no wings. They were blown apart except for the crew compartment, which you have an upper tier and a lower tier. I mean, that was it, in a nutshell. And they dropped and they hit the water. And they… it was the left side where the hatch apparently was at, and we had them on radar. I mean, we actually painted them, plotted them, had them right on the button. And it was through our CIC. And we were relating all this information. We were in… It’s like it was too much for them. They went into like a vapor lock. The Powers That Be, their managers and the ones… because it was a shock factor. Naturally, it caught them off-guard.
But let’s roll this back a little bit. As to what I understand, being in the United States Navy, what caused the accident? What caused the accident, from what we understood in the Navy afterwards, was that they were had a boom, and you have the external tank. Then you have the forward strut attachment point, where the Challenger attached to the forward… Well, forward strut on the external tank. They had a boom that got away from, some way, somehow. And it punctured that tank. And they did a repair job. I mean, they patched it. Whatever.
And then that morning, it was very, very cold, because we had some relatively warm jackets on, that morning. The ones that were on the rev watch. And I believe the story where the O-rings on the solid fuel rockets. I mean, they were frozen, so they contracted. It wasn’t proper seal. So on the ascension, that patch let loose, and you can see a flame if you watch the video, where it ignited and a flame shot out of the one side of the one rocket booster, igniting in a blue flame. Look for a blue flame. And it travels all the way up, right behind the front attachment point of the Challenger to the external fuel tank. And then a split-second later, you have a catastrophic explosion. And that’s how… [it wiped out].
Kerry: Okay. Well… I’m actually on the internet, as your speaking, looking up fatal events involving NASA astronauts. And what you said was, they were unprepared, as if they had no idea that such a thing could happen. And we are saying this happened in the year 1986.
Ed: Correct.
Kerry: Okay? January 28th.
Ed: Correct. _____
Kerry: So, NASA had been operation for what? Twenty, at least twenty years at that point?
Ed: Well, quite a while, but… _____
Kerry: [chuckles] You know, I don’t buy it. I’m sorry. I appreciate…
Ed: They’re all type-A personalities. [laughs]
Kerry: Yeah. I appreciate that. But I don’t buy it. I have to say that, they have to prepared for anything and everything, under their circumstances of what they do for a living. And I…
Ed: Well, you might be a little biased, because you worked for the… for those folks.
Kerry: That’s right.
Ed: So, I understand where you’re coming from. And I appreciate that. And I respect you. But, however, this event, psychologically, this was a mind-blowing experience.
Kerry: [laughs]
Ed: My goodness [the] shockwave… _______
Kerry: Even so, but if… Let’s put yourself in that situation of a mind-blowing experience, and you’ve got people in NASA who are on, I guess, on the floor or on the board, whatever you call that, watching events. And at the same time, in connection, in communication with your ship, and telling your ship to back away. See, there is something very, very profound going on there. I don’t understand. As far as I’m concerned — and I know we started talking about the Kennedy assassination — but this is just one more…
Ed: This is really transitioned, hasn’t it, Kerry? It’s a big transition. Yes, it is. Well, I’ll be… I’m being as honest and straight-up with you as I possibly could be. But you might say we critiqued NASA. I mean, we most definitely did. And… I mean, we’re trained for disasters. We look awful cute in our crackerjacks. You’ve seen sailors. I’m sure you have. Aren’t we cute. However, our business is warfare at sea. To destroy. To sink. To smash submarines. That was the mission of my ship. And that’s what we were trained to do. And we see the world differently.
And if it was a Navy operation from the get-go, you probably would have had a different end result, because NASA is actually civilians. Sure, they’re rolled into the federal government. Whatever. But they don’t have mind-set of… of the military. And I can’t really speak for the other branches, because I don’t know that much about them. But I do feel comfortable about addressing what it was like to be a member of the United States Navy. And… I don’t know why they dropped the ball.
Kerry: Okay.
Ed: I can only speculate. Really… I mean, it would have been a little different outcome, I think. And I guess what _______
Kerry: Right. But dropping the ball. I’m sorry to interrupt you here, but dropping the ball and sending a rescue vessel away. And not having that investigated further. I don’t know that it’s ever been investigated. I don’t know if there are books written, investigating suspicious aspects of this event or not. I haven’t really gone down that road. It doesn’t sound as though you have either.
Ed: Well, we’re compartmentalized. I mean, the Navy, we did our thing. We were… we would have done more, if called upon to do. And we stayed there. We finished the mission. And we finished our mission. And then we were released after several days, to go back up to Mayport and Liberty Hall, Liberty Hall. And while the married the fellas wanted to get home to their wives and their kids. And then we go about our business. What’s the next agenda for us to do? What’s our next deployment? And then we prepare for that and do our work-ups. And we’re a tight group on a Navy ship. It might be steel, aluminum, brass wires, but the soul of a ship is her crew. And… we did what we did, and we followed our orders.
And it’s actually amazing that we got into this subject, because I had no idea I was going to go over this. None whatsoever. I thought we were just going to talk about my ballistics with Jack Kennedy. But anyhow, you’re getting a bonus here. [laughs]
Kerry: [laughs]
Ed: [laughs]
Kerry: Okay. Well, I appreciate that. At this time, what I would suggest is that we wrap this up. It’s been going for a while. I think that I will just put it out with the Kennedy information and that the… the sort of questions that are now raised about the Challenger. I know there will be investigators out there. I am doing a quick search on the net, to see if there are other people who have started to investigate it. And it looks like there are some. And possibly this will sort of pique some interest out there, and you may get some feedback. Do you want to give out an email address or anything like that, so people can reach you, if they have more information about either subject?
Ed: Well… I don’t know how I’m going to be feeling, after I go through all this business I have to go through medically. And… I can give you my email address at a later date, if that’s okay with you.
Kerry: No problem. So, if people are interested in this subject, and they want to talk to Ed Laughrin, why don’t you write to me, [email protected], and then I will forward the emails along to Ed. And then he can answer them, if and when he gets a chance.
Ed: Yeah. The last name’s pronounced… It’s very Scotch-Irish, Kerry. I go all the way back to [Aries] Loch, and that’s 50 A.D. in Scotland.
Kerry: Okay.
Ed: I had… I mean, one of my cousins and then an aunt and several other ones, kept track of the family record. And it’s pronounced ‘lock,’ like the lock on your car, lock on your door. And the ‘rin’ is Irish, because we had to evacuate, along Hadrian’s Wall, because we weren’t doing very good against the Romans. And they made a tactical withdrawal to the Isle of Man in Northern Ireland. So, that’s my lineage. And ‘Aries,’ by the way, means Mars. So, what does that mean? [laughs] We can get into a whole new topic, couldn’t we? Very easily, yeah.
Kerry: Sure. Absolutely. Okay, at this point, I’d like to wish you good luck. If you haven’t already read Richard Hoagland’s book about NASA, I highly recommend it, which is called ‘Dark Mission.’
Ed: Oh yeah. Yeah, yeah. I’m a little bit familiar through you…
Kerry: Uh-huh.
Ed: …you and Project Camelot about it, and I’ve thoroughly found these very educational. And I really enjoy Bob Dean. I’ve never met him, but you… give him my respects from a former fleet sailor. [laughs]
Kerry: Okay.
Ed: And… Yeah. He’s pretty remarkable, but he… I’m really amazed that a retired command master sergeant has such a fantastic pigtail. How far down does that actually go down his back? Pretty darn far. But, anyhow…
Kerry: [chuckles]
Ed: I appreciate this. And the reason why I never really went public on any of this business about the Challenger, is because respect for the families and also, too, what used to gall us, was that they were blown to bits, on the media and national news. ‘Oh, they were blown to bits.’ And then speculation — ‘They must have been blown to bits.’ Well, they weren’t blown to bits. The fallen astronauts, the seven, were laid to rest in coffins. They were in… they had their toes and their fingers.
Kerry: Right.
Ed: The ones on the bottom deck, they suffered shrapnel. But Judy used up all her air, and she was on zero and she had a dry head. And… if you go on the internet, you might be able to get that up. But that was all what we heard through the grapevine in the United States Navy at that time. So, [sighs] again, I want to thank you and thank you for Project Camelot. And give my respects to Bill Ryan, who, by the way, did an interview with — you could him a friend of mine — and that is Paul Hellyer, former Minister of Defense. I know Paul. I helped him a little bit with his book, ‘Light at the End of the Tunnel,’ and I set up the interview that he did with Travis Walton. And I also know Travis.
And I’ve had the same type of experience but not so profound, back in March of ’75 with a crescent-shaped vehicle. And we have quite a bit in common, and there were… if there’s ever points where he gets down a little bit, I try to cheer him up about it, such as, ‘Well, Travis, they didn’t eat us.’ [laughs] So, I know Travis and Paul.
Kerry: Okay.
Ed: Yeah. So, yeah.
Kerry: All right. Well, listen, Ed. Thank you very much for your testimony at this point. And possibly we can continue this when you return and you feel better.
Ed: Okay.
Kerry: And I would appreciate it, if you possibly would consider looking further into the Challenger information, if it interests you at all, simply because, if you were a ship on the scene, and you were turned away, and these astronauts could have been rescued, and some could have survived, then we have a whole different ballgame happening. And it’s just more of this sort of kind of conspiracy that has been plaguing NASA since the beginning, and that there are other very, very strong elements, even happening now. And you can… I’ll give you free access to my — if I haven’t already — to my ‘Awake and Aware Conference.’
Ed: Okay. Thank you.
Kerry: So you can listen. And I advise you to listen to Richard Hoagland’s presentation on Elenin and other matters, because you can see, in following his train of investigation, that there is a lot of evasion going on by NASA on a constant basis, and obviously, it didn’t start yesterday. It started many, many years ago. And this involves the secret space program, etc., etc. So, the rabbit hole goes very deep.
Ed: Yes, it does.
Kerry: And I appreciate the level that which you’re trying to investigate, but I think that you could go a lot farther.
Ed: Well, thank you for that. And also, too, you did an interview with Andrew Basiago. [pronounces it BA-sa-go]
Kerry: Basiago. [pronounces it ba-SAJ-yo]
Ed: Basiago. ___________
Kerry: Basiago. Yeah, we have not interviewed him. We did interview him in a TV show that is handled by truTV, and we are waiting for the release of that TV show. It is sitting on the shelf right now. They’ve gone outside of their contract and have not shown it yet. And we are still waiting for an air date.
Ed: Well, I don’t get along with him. I’ve had conversations with him, and I have problems with the ethics, human rights violations. I… we talked about timelines — and I’ll be straight with you, Kerry — he accused of me of… a possible individual to interfere with the timeline. Now, that’s… We got into a little argument over the phone. And he vented on me pretty good. But personally, I don’t hold anything against him, but we don’t see eye-to-eye on Pegasus. And certain…
Kerry: That’s all good. I’m sure that we could cover that at another date. I mean, it’s very important for people to compare notes and to cross-correlate information. So, if you have a different information, we’re happy to listen to it.
Ed: Okay. yeah.
Kerry: Whatever.
Ed: But I believe in our autonomy as human beings. I believe that we shouldn’t be modified and we should not be enslaved. Absolutely not.
Kerry: Right.
Ed: And that’s my point of view. I’m very pro-human and pro-planet. And that’s just the way I’m put together. And Andy seemed to be a little obtuse. A little impersonal. And me, I take it very seriously, especially the business out there. It… what do you call it, Dulce, human experiments, bio-genetic stuff is outrageous.
Kerry: Right.
Ed: Yeah. It’s absolutely an abomination, in my opinion. And I’m very pro-human. And I’m going to be that way for the rest of my life. And we are royalty — I’m convinced of that — in the universe. We are very unique, our species. We’re special. [laughs]
Kerry: I hear you, and I agree with you, Ed. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Like I said, I’m going to wrap this up, and I hope the recording came out, so it’s audible and understandable. Let’s reconvene at some point in the near future. I’ll be in India for about a little over two weeks. And I’m sure you’ll be recovering. Good luck with your surgery. If… I highly recommend natural healers rather than going through the medical establishment, if you could avoid it, but I assume you’re following your own… inner dictate[s].
Ed: Yeah. I did have a very sore chest. So, I’m going to have to have a very good pillow if I cough.
Kerry: Okay.
Ed: [laughs]
Kerry: All right. Well, you hang in there, all right?
Ed: I’ll do that, Kerry, and you have a very safe trip.
Kerry: Thank you very much
SOURCE: http://www.projectcamelot.org/
May 21, 2012 | Activism
One of the more extreme government abuses of the post-9/11 era targets U.S. citizens re-entering their own country, and it has received far too little attention. With no oversight or legal framework whatsoever, the Department of Homeland Security routinely singles out individuals who are suspected of no crimes, detains them and questions them at the airport, often for hours, when they return to the U.S. after an international trip, and then copies and even seizes their electronic devices (laptops, cameras, cellphones) and other papers (notebooks, journals, credit card receipts), forever storing their contents in government files. No search warrant is needed for any of this. No oversight exists. And there are no apparent constraints on what the U.S. Government can do with regard to whom it decides to target or why.
In an age of international travel — where large numbers of citizens, especially those involved in sensitive journalism and activism, frequently travel outside the country — this power renders the protections of the Fourth Amendment entirely illusory. By virtue of that amendment, if the government wants to search and seize the papers and effects of someone on U.S. soil, it must (with some exceptions) first convince a court that there is probable cause to believe that the objects to be searched relate to criminal activity and a search warrant must be obtained. But now, none of those obstacles — ones at the very heart of the design of the Constitution — hinders the U.S. government: now, they can just wait until you leave the country, and then, at will, search, seize and copy all of your electronic files on your return. That includes your emails, the websites you’ve visited, the online conversations you’ve had, the identities of those with whom you’ve communicated, your cell phone contacts, your credit card receipts, film you’ve taken, drafts of documents you’re writing, and anything else that you store electronically: which, these days, when it comes to privacy, means basically everything of worth.
This government abuse has received some recent attention in the context of WikiLeaks. Over the past couple of years, any American remotely associated with that group — or even those who have advocated on behalf of Bradley Manning — have been detained at the airport and had their laptops, cellphones and cameras seized: sometimes for months, sometimes forever. But this practice usually targets people having nothing to do with WikiLeaks.
A 2011 FOIA request from the ACLU revealed that just in the 18-month period beginning October 1, 2008, more than 6,600 people — roughly half of whom were American citizens — were subjected to electronic device searches at the border by DHS, all without a search warrant. Typifying the target of these invasive searches is Pascal Abidor, a 26-year-old dual French-American citizen and an Islamic Studies Ph.D. student who was traveling from Montreal to New York on an Amtrak train in 2011 when he was stopped at the border, questioned by DHS agents, handcuffed, taken off the train and kept in a holding cell for several hours before being released without charges; those DHS agents seized his laptop and returned it 11 days later when, the ACLU explains, “there was evidence that many of his personal files, including research, photos and chats with his girlfriend, had been searched.” That’s just one case of thousands, all without any oversight, transparency, legal checks, or any demonstration of wrongdoing.
* * * * *
But the case of Laura Poitras, an Oscar-and Emmy-nominated filmmaker and intrepid journalist, is perhaps the most extreme. In 2004 and 2005, Poitras spent many months in Iraq filming a documentary that, as The New York Times put it in its review, “exposed the emotional toll of occupation on Iraqis and American soldiers alike.” The film, “My Country, My Country,” focused on a Sunni physician and 2005 candidate for the Iraqi Congress as he did things like protest the imprisonment of a 9-year-old boy by the U.S. military. At the time Poitras made this film, Iraqi Sunnis formed the core of the anti-American insurgency and she spent substantial time filming and reporting on the epicenter of that resistance. Poitras’ film was released in 2006 and nominated for the 2007 Academy Award for Best Documentary.

In 2010, she produced and directed “The Oath,” which chronicled the lives of two Yemenis caught up in America’s War on Terror: Salim Hamdan, the accused driver of Osama bin Laden whose years-long imprisonment at Guantanamo led to the 2006 Supreme Court case, bearing his name, that declared military commissions to be a violation of domestic and international law; and Hamdan’s brother-in-law, a former bin Laden bodyguard. The film provides incredible insight into the mindset of these two Yemenis. TheNYT feature on “The Oath” stated that, along with “My Country, My Country,” Poitras has produced ”two of the most searching documentaries of the post-9/11 era, on-the-ground chronicles that are sensitive to both the political and the human consequences of American foreign policy.” At the 2010 Sundance film festival, “The Oath” won the award for Best Cinematography.
Poitras’ intent all along with these two documentaries was to produce a trilogy of War on Terror films, and she is currently at work on the third installment. As Poitras described it to me, this next film will examine the way in which The War on Terror has been imported onto U.S. soil, with a focus on the U.S. Government’s increasing powers of domestic surveillance, its expanding covert domestic NSA activities (includingconstruction of a massive new NSA facility in Bluffdale, Utah), its attacks on whistleblowers, and the movement to foster government transparency and to safeguard Internet anonymity. In sum, Poitras produces some of the best, bravest and most important filmmaking and journalism of the past decade, often exposing truths that are adverse to U.S. government policy, concerning the most sensitive and consequential matters (a 2004 film she produced for PBS on gentrification of an Ohio town won the Peabody Award and was nominated for an Emmy).
But Poitras’ work has been hampered, and continues to be hampered, by the constant harassment, invasive searches, and intimidation tactics to which she is routinely subjected whenever she re-enters her own country. Since the 2006 release of “My Country, My Country,” Poitras has left and re-entered the U.S. roughly 40 times. Virtually every timeduring that six-year-period that she has returned to the U.S., her plane has been met by DHS agents who stand at the airplane door or tarmac and inspect the passports of every de-planing passenger until they find her (on the handful of occasions where they did not meet her at the plane, agents were called when she arrived at immigration). Each time, they detain her, and then interrogate her at length about where she went and with whom she met or spoke. They have exhibited a particular interest in finding out for whom she works.

She has had her laptop, camera and cellphone seized, and not returned for weeks, with the contents presumably copied. On several occasions, her reporter’s notebooks were seized and their contents copied, even as she objected that doing so would invade her journalist-source relationship. Her credit cards and receipts have been copied on numerous occasions. In many instances, DHS agents also detain and interrogate her in the foreign airport before her return, on one trip telling her that she would be barred from boarding her flight back home, only to let her board at the last minute. When she arrived at JFK Airport on Thanksgiving weekend of 2010, she was told by one DHS agent — after she asserted her privileges as a journalist to refuse to answer questions about the individuals with whom she met on her trip — that he “finds it very suspicious that you’re not willing to help your country by answering our questions.” They sometimes keep her detained for three to four hours (all while telling her that she will be released more quickly if she answers all their questions and consents to full searches).
Poitras is now forced to take extreme steps — ones that hamper her ability to do her work — to ensure that she can engage in her journalism and produce her films without the U.S. Government intruding into everything she is doing. She now avoids traveling with any electronic devices. She uses alternative methods to deliver the most sensitive parts of her work — raw film and interview notes — to secure locations. She spends substantial time and resources protecting her computers with encryption and password defenses. Especially when she is in the U.S., she avoids talking on the phone about her work, particularly to sources. And she simply will not edit her films at her home out of fear — obviously well-grounded — that government agents will attempt to search and seize the raw footage.
That’s the climate of fear created by the U.S. Government for an incredibly accomplished journalist and filmmaker who has never been accused, let alone convicted, of any wrongdoing whatsoever. Indeed,documents obtained from a FOIA request show that DHS has repeatedly concluded that nothing incriminating was found from its border searches and interrogations of Poitras. Nonetheless, these abuses not only continue, but escalate, after six years of constant harassment.
* * * * *
Poitras has been somewhat reluctant to speak publicly about the treatment to which she is subjected for fear that doing so would further impede her ability to do her work (the NYT feature on “The Oath” included some discussion of it). But the latest episode, among the most aggressive yet, has caused her to want to vociferously object.

On Thursday night, Poitras arrived at Newark International Airport from Britain. Prior to issuing her a boarding pass in London, the ticket agent called a Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agent (Yost) who questioned her about whom she met and what she did. Upon arriving in Newark, DHS/CBP agents, as always, met her plane, detained her, and took her to an interrogation room. Each time this has happened in the past, Poitras has taken notes during the entire process: in order to chronicle what is being done to her, document the journalistic privileges she asserts and her express lack of consent, obtain the names of the agents involved, and just generally to cling to some level of agency.
This time, however, she was told by multiple CBP agents that she was prohibited from taking notes on the ground that her pen could be used as a weapon. After she advised them that she was a journalist and that her lawyer had advised her to keep notes of her interrogations, one of them, CBP agent Wassum, threatened to handcuff her if she did not immediately stop taking notes. A CBP Deputy Chief (Lopez) also told her she was barred from taking notes, and then accused her of “refusing to cooperate with an investigation” if she continued to refuse to answer their questions (he later clarified that there was no “investigation” per se, but only a “questioning”). Requests for comment from the CBP were not returned as of the time of publication.
Just consider the cumulative effect of this six years of harrassment and invasion. Poitras told me that it is “very traumatizing to come home to your own country and have to go through this every time,”and described the detentions, interrogations and threats as “infuriating,” “horrible” and “intimidating.” She told me that she now “hates to travel” and avoids international travel unless it is absolutely necessary for her work. And as she pointed out, she is generally more protected than most people subjected to similar treatment by virtue of the fact that she is a known journalist with both knowledge of her rights and the ability to publicize what is done to her. Most others are far less able to resist these sorts of abuses. But even for someone in Poitras’ position, this continuous unchecked government invasion is chilling in both senses of the word: it’s intimidating in its own right, and deters journalists and others from challenging government conduct.
* * * * *
As is true for so many abuses of the Surveillance State and assaults on basic liberties in the post-9/11 era, federal courts have almost completely abdicated their responsibility to serve as a check on these transgressions. Instead, federal judges have repeatedly endorsed the notion that the U.S. Government can engage in the most invasive border searches of citizens, including seizures and copying of laptops, without any reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing whatsoever, let alone probable cause.
That has happened in part because federal courts have become extremely submissive to assertions of Executive authority in the post-9/11 era, particularly when justified in the name of security. It’s also in part because anyone with a record of anti-authoritarianism or a willingness to oppose unrestrained government power, with very rare exception, can no longer get appointed to the federal bench; instead, it’s an increasingly homogeneous lot with demonstrated fealty to institutional authority. And it’s also in part because many life-tenured federal judges have been cloistered on the bench for decades, are technologically illiterate, and thus cannot apprehend the basic difference between having your suitcase searched at the airport and having the contents of your laptop and cellphone copied and stored by the U.S. Government.
One potentially important and encouraging exception to this trend was a ruling two weeks ago by U.S. District Judge Denise Casper, an Obama-appointed judge in the District of Massachusetts. As I’ve reported previously, David House, an activist who helped found the Bradley Manning Support Network, was detained by DHS when returning from a vacation in Mexico and had all of his electronic devices, including his laptop, seized; those devices were returned to him after almost two months only after he retained the ACLU of Massachusetts to demand their return. The ACLU then represented him in a lawsuit he commenced against the U.S. Government, alleging that his First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated by virtue of being targeted for his political speech and advocacy.
The DOJ demanded dismissal of the lawsuit, citing the cases approving of its power to search without suspicion, and also claimed that House was targeted not because of his political views but because of his connection to the criminal investigation of Manning and WikiLeaks. But the court refused to dismiss House’s lawsuit, holding that if he were indeed targeted by virtue of his protected activities, then his Constitutional rights have been violated:
Before even questioning House, the agents seized his electronic devices and in seizing them for forty-nine days, reviewed, retained, copied and disseminated information about the Support Network. Although the agents may not need to have any particularized suspicion for the initial search and seizure at the border for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment analysis, it does not necessarily follow that the agents, as is alleged in the complaint, may seize personal electronic devices containing expressive materials, target someone for their political association and seize his electronic devices and review the information pertinent to that association and its members and supporters simply because the initial search occurred at the border. . . .
When agents Santiago and Louck stopped House while he was en route to his connecting flight, they directed him to surrender the electronic devices he was carrying. They questioned him for an extended period of time only after seizing his devices. When the agents questioned House, they did not ask him any questions related to border control, customs, trade, immigration, or terrorism and did not suggest that House had broken the law or that his computer may contain illegal material or contraband. Rather, their questions focused solely on his association with Manning, his work for the Support Network, whether he had any connections to WikiLeaks, and whether he had contact with anyone from WikiLeaks during his trip to Mexico. Thus, the complaint alleges that House was not randomly stopped at the border; it alleges that he was stopped and questioned solely to examine the contents of his laptop that contained expressive material and investigate his association with the Support Network and Manning. . . .
That the initial search and seizure occurred at the border does not strip House of his First Amendment rights, particularly given the allegations in the complaint that he was targeted specifically because of his association with the Support Network and the search of his laptop resulted in the disclosure of the organizations, members, supporters donors as well as internal organization communications that House alleges will deter further participation in and support of the organization. Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss House’s First Amendment claim is DENIED. [emphasis added]
As Kevin Gosztola notes in an excellent report on this ruling, the court — although it dubiously found that “the search of House’s laptop and electronic devices is more akin to the search of a suitcase and other closed containers holding personal information travelers carry with them when they cross the border which may be routinely inspected by customs and require no particularized suspicion” – also ruled that the length of time DHS retained House’s laptop (six weeks) may render the search and seizure unreasonable in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
But thus far, very few efforts have been made to restrain this growing government power. More than a year ago, Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez described to me legislation she proposed just to impose someminimal rules and safeguards governing what DHS can do at the airport, but it’s gone nowhere. A much stronger bill, proposed by then-Sen. Feingold, would have barred laptop seizures entirely without a search warrant, but it suffered the same fate. Apparently, the Small Government faction calling itself the “Tea Party” has no greater interest in restraining this incredibly invasive government power than the Democratic Party which loves to boast of its commitment to individual rights.
It’s hard to overstate how oppressive it is for the U.S. Government to be able to target journalists, film-makers and activists and, without a shred of suspicion of wrongdoing, learn the most private and intimate details about them and their work: with whom they’re communicating, what is being said, what they’re reading. That’s a radical power for a government to assert in general. When it starts being applied not randomly, but to people engaged in activism and journalism adverse to the government, it becomes worse than radical: it’s the power of intimidation and deterrence against those who would challenge government conduct in any way. The ongoing, and escalating, treatment of Laura Poitras is a testament to how severe that abuse is.
If you’re not somebody who films the devastation wrought by the U.S. on the countries it attacks, or provides insight into Iraqi occupation opponents and bin Laden loyalists in Yemen, or documents expanding NSA activities on U.S. soil, then perhaps you’re unlikely to be subjected to such abuses and therefore perhaps unlikely to care much. As is true for all states that expand and abuse their own powers, that’s what the U.S. Government counts on: that it is sending the message that none of this will affect you as long as you avoid posing any meaningful challenges to what they do. In other words: you can avoid being targeted if you passively acquiesce to what they do and refrain from interfering in it. That’s precisely what makes it so pernicious, and why it’s so imperative to find a way to rein it in.
SOURCE:
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/singleton/
By: Glenn Greenwald, April 8, 2012