Abu Zubaydah Poses a Real Threat to al Qaeda

9/11 Blogger
Kevin Ryan

Abu Zubaydah, a man once called al-Qaeda’s “chief of operations” appears to be at the center of an unraveling of the official myth behind al Qaeda.  After his capture in early 2002, Zubaydah was the first “detainee” known to be tortured.  The information allegedly obtained from his torture played a large part in the creation of the official account of 9/11 and in the justification for the continued use of such torture techniques.  Yet in September, 2009, the U.S. government admitted that Zubaydah was never a member or associate of al Qaeda at all.  These facts raise an alarming number of questions about the veracity of our knowledge about al Qaeda, and the true identity of the people who are said to be behind the 9/11 attacks.

Unlike other alleged al Qaeda leaders, including Khlaid Sheik Mohammed and Rasmi bin Alshibh, Zubaydah has never been charged with a crime.  As these other leading suspects await their continually-postponed military trial, Zubaydah is instead being airbrushed out of history.  Why would the U.S. government want us to forget Zubaydah, the first and most important al Qaeda operative captured after 9/11?

The 9/11 Commission called Zubaydah an “Al Qaeda associate,” a “long-time ally of Bin Ladin,” a “Bin Ladin lieutenant,” and an “al Qaeda lieutenant.”[1] The Commission’s claims were somewhat contradictory in that Zubaydah was, in the Commission’s report, represented as both an al Qaeda leader and simply a terrorist colleague who collaborated in the training and recruiting of operatives.  For example, the Commission reported that Zubaydah “helped operate a popular terrorist training camp near the border with Pakistan” [Khalden Camp], and that Bin Laden had an agreement with Zubaydah to “conduct reciprocal recruiting efforts whereby promising trainees at the camps would be invited to join al Qaeda.”  It was unclear why a “Bin Laden lieutenant” would need such a reciprocal agreement with Bin Laden.

Other claims made by the 9/11 Commission were that “KSM and Zubaydah each played key roles in facilitating travel for al Qaeda operatives,” and that “Zubaydah had been a major figure in the millenium plots.” These claims are supported primarily by the torture testimony of Zubaydah and others, and by Zubaydah’s “diary.”

In an amazing turnabout in 2009, an attorney for Zubaydah wrote in The Guardian that the majority of the accusations against Zubaydah were understood by all parties to be false.  In fact, he wrote, they “were known to be false when uttered.“[2]  Attorney Brent Mickum said that his client, said to be the “number three man in al Qaeda,” was never a member or associate of al Qaeda and that — “These facts really are no longer contested: [Zubaydah] was not, and never had been, a member of either the Taliban or al-Qaida. The CIA determined this after torturing him extensively.”  In fact, he “was never a member or a supporter of any armed forces that were allied against the United States,” and he was never the “head of a military camp that trained terrorists. That allegation is false at all levels.”

It turns out that Mickum’s report was correct and that “Abu Zubaydah’s supposed relationship with al-Qaida is a complete myth.”[3]

We know this because, as of September 2009, the U.S. government agreed that Zubaydah was never an al Qaeda operative.  During Zubaydah’s habeas corpus petition, the government admitted that Abu Zubaydah had never been a member of al-Qaeda, nor involved in the attacks on the African embassies in 1998, or the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.[4]  The motion, filed by the U.S. government, states:

  

…the Government has not contended in this proceeding that Petitioner [Zubaydah] was a member of al-Qaida or otherwise formally identified with al-Qaida.

Respondent [The United States Government] does not contend that Petitioner was a “member” of al-Qaida in the sense of having sworn a bayat (allegiance) or having otherwise satisfied any formal criteria that either Petitioner or al-Qaida may have considered necessary for inclusion in al-Qaida. Nor is the Government detaining Petitioner based on any allegation that Petitioner views himself as part of al-Qaida as a matter of subjective personal conscience, ideology, or worldview.

The Government has not contended in this proceeding that Petitioner had any direct role in or advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

… the Government has not contended that Petitioner had any personal involvement in planning or executing either the 1998 embassy bombings… or the attacks on September 11, 2001.

In his article that same year, attorney Mickum went on to point out that the torture tapes, which the CIA had first lied to the 9/11 Commission about and then destroyed, had a lot to do with Zubaydah.  Mickum wrote:  “the videotapes of his torture were destroyed. Just recently, the government revealed that 90 of the 92 videotapes that the CIA destroyed related to our client.”  Not only that, Mickum went on to say that the U.S. government has removed all “reference to my client from the charge sheets and factual returns of other prisoners whose cases were being prosecuted. Abu Zubaydah has been linked to nearly 50 prisoners and former prisoners through media accounts and official Guantanamo Bay documents. Of these, approximately two dozen have either had their charges dropped or have been released from custody.”  They have, essentially, “airbrushed Abu Zubaydah out of history.”

Obviously this attempt to remove a key 9/11 accomplice from history must make a significant difference to the official account of 9/11.  We would expect that major revisions to the 9/11 Commission Report would be necessary given the knowledge that the man never had a connection to al Qaeda.

In order to better understand just how much Zubaydah meant as a primary source for the official account of 9/11, we must review the extensive claims made about Zubaydah by the U.S. government and mainstream media  over the years.  We’ve seen that the 9/11 Commission (falsely) called Zubaydah an “al Qaeda lieutenant.”  The Joint Congressional inquiry did the same, calling him “al-Qa’ida leader Abu Zubaydah,” and the “Bin Ladin lieutenant captured in March 2002.”  As late as 2006, the Justice Department’s Inspector General report on the 9/11 attacks called Zubaydah a “Bin Laden lieutenant.”

When Zubaydah was captured, in March 2002, U.S. government officials touted him as the biggest catch of the War on Terror, at least until the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM).  FBI Director Robert Mueller stated that Zubaydah’s capture would help deter future attacks.[5]  White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that Zubaydah could provide a treasure-trove of information about al-Qaeda.[6]  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed that Zubaydah was “a man who knows of additional attacks”, who has “trained people to do this”, and was a big fish who had a fountain of knowledge.[7]

The extensive allegations against Zubaydah went on and on, and included that he was:

• along with KSM, one of “Al Qaeda’s top operational managers” – “Counterterrorism Czar”Richard Clarke, in his book Against All Enemies
• “sinister” and “there is evidence that he is a planner and a manager as well. I think he’s a major player.” – Former State Department director of counter-terrorism, Michael Sheehan [8]
•  “extremely dangerous” and a planner of 9/11. – State Department legal advisor John B. Bellinger III in a June 2007 briefing.[9]
• a trainer, a recruiter, understood bomb-making, was a forger, a logistician, and someone who made things happen, and made “al-Qaeda function.” – Former CIA station chief, Bob Grenier [10]
• “a close associate of UBL’s, and if not the number two, very close to the number two person in the organization. I think that’s well established.” -Donald Rumsfeld [11]
•  “a very senior al Qaeda official who has been intimately involved in a range of activities for the al Qaeda.” – Donald Rumsfeld [12]
• a “very senior al Qaeda operative.” – Donald Rumsfeld
• a “key terrorist recruiter and operational planner and member of Osama bin Laden’s inner circle.” – White House spokesman Ari Fleischer [13]
• someone whose capture was a “very serious blow” to al-Qaeda and therefore one of al-Qaeda’s “many tentacles” was “cut off.” – White House spokesman Ari Fleischer
•  “one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States.” –President George W. Bush [14]
•  “one of al-Qaeda’s top leaders” who was “spending a lot of time as one of the top operating officials of al Qaeda, plotting and planning murder.” –President George W. Bush [15]
•  “al Qaeda’s chief of operations.” – President George W. Bush [16]
• “one of the top three leaders” in al-Qaeda. – President George W. Bush [17]
• someone whose interrogation “led to reliable information”, a “prolific producer” of information, with whom originated roughly 25 percent of the information on al Qaeda that came from human sources. – Michael Hayden [18]
• one of three individuals “best positioned to know about impending terrorist atrocities.” – Michael Hayden [19]

As the myth of Zubaydah grew, it was reported that he was –

• “worth a ton of guys at Gitmo.”[20]
• a “senior bin Laden official” and the “former head of Egypt-based Islamic Jihad.”[21]
• “played a key role in the East Africa embassy attacks.”[22]
• listed as a “trusted aide” to bin Laden with “growing power.”[23]
• in control of al-Qaeda.[24]
• an aide of bin Laden who ran training camps in Afghanistan and “coordinated terror cells in Europe and North America.”[25]
• a “key terrorist recruiter, operational planner, and member of Osama Bin Laden’s inner circle.”[26]
• “bin Laden’s CEO”,[27] and “a central figure in Al Qaeda”[28]
• Bin Laden’s “travel planner.”[29]
• “one of a handful of men entrusted with running the terrorism network in the event of Osama bin Laden’s death or capture.”[30]
• a senior bin Laden lieutenant who was believed “to be organizing al Qaida resources to carry out attacks on American targets.”[31]
• the fourth ranking member of al Qaeda behind Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Muhamed Atef.[32]
• someone who knew the identities of “thousands” of terrorists that passed through al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan [33]
• a colleague of Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber.[34]
• one of bin Laden’s top planners of terrorist operations who knew of al Qaeda plots and cells.[35]
• the “connection between bin Laden and many of al-Qaida’s operational cells.”[36]
• the source of information that UAL Flight 93 was intended to hit the White House.[37]

Because we now know that Zubayda was never an al Qaeda operative, or even an al Qaeda associate, we are forced into the stunning realization that all of this was false.  The questions that should arise from that realization include:  How much of what we know about al Qaeda, and how much of the War on Terror, was built on the torture testimony of a man who clearly could not have known anything about al Qaeda at all?

Originally, we were told that it was Zubaydha who first identified KSM as the Bin Laden associate called “Mukhtar.”  This was according to Ali Soufan, the FBI official who first interrogated him at a secret CIA site in Thailand.  Soufan also claimed that Zubaydah said KSM was the “mastermind” behind the 9/11 attacks.  In his 2007 book, CIA director Tenet went further, claiming that “interrogating Abu Zubaydah led to Ramsi bin al Shibh.”[38]

Senators accuse Saudi Arabia of 9/11 involvement

Editor's Note:  Let's watch this carefully as they seemed 'mighty attuned' to Saudi Arabia when 125 Israeli Mossad agents were arrested on that day. 

Russia Today

Two former American senators involved in federal inquiries that dealt with the September 11 terrorist attacks are asking the US to re-examine the possibility that Saudi Arabia played a pivotal role in the tragedy.

Both Bob Graham and Bob Kerrey, two former senators for the states of Florida and Nebraska, respectively, have filed statements with the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York in which they suggest that the Saudi government had a substantial role in the 9/11 attacks. Senator Graham previously served as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on 9/11 and Kerrey was a member of the bi-partisan National Commission on Terrorist Acts Upon the United States, commonly referred to as the "9/11 Commission.”

Explaining his renewed involvement in the matter, Senator Graham says, “I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia.” Graham adds that an "…issue deserving of further attention and investigation concerns the involvement of Saudi based charities in the provision of financial and other support to al Qaeda, and the precise character of the relationships between those charities and the government of the Kingdom."

In a statement filed with the court this week, both senators say the US was too quick to exonerate the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi High Commission from involvement in the terrorist attacks. The District Court in New York will hear arguments later this month to see if it is viable to reintroduce the Saudis as a defendants in the In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 litigation. That case, which concluded in 2008, ended with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, several Saudi princes, a Saudi banker and a Saudi charity being removed from charges that they were involved in the terrorist attacks.

Despite allegations of Saudi involvement in 9/11, the US government has remained close with the country since they were exonerated from any connection. As recently as this past December, the Obama administration announced plans to move $30 billion worth of fighter jets and other weaponry to the kingdom. Andrew Shapiro, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, told reporters at the time, “This sale will send a strong message to countries in the region that the United States is committed to stability in the Gulf and broader Middle East.”

9/11 AND AMERICA'S "WAR ON TERRORISM"

Global Research, May 26, 2011

The livelihood of millions of people throughout the World is at stake. It is my sincere hope that the truth will prevail and that the understanding provided in this detailed study will serve the cause of World peace. This objective, however, can only be reached by revealing the falsehoods behind America’s “War on Terrorism” and questioning the legitimacy of the main political and military actors responsible for extensive war crimes.

PREFACE

At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush adminstration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation.

That same evening at 9:30 pm, a “War Cabinet” was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. And at 11:00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White House, the “War on Terrorism” was officially launched.

The decision was announced to wage war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in retribution for the 9/11 attacks. The following morning on September 12th, the news headlines indelibly pointed to “state sponsorship” of the 9/11 attacks. In chorus, the US media was calling for a military intervention against Afghanistan. Barely four weeks later, on the 7th of October, Afghanistan was bombed and invaded by US troops.Americans were led to believe that the decison to go to war had been taken on the spur of the moment, on the evening of September 11, in response to the attacks and their tragic consequences.

Little did the public realize that a large scale theater war is never planned and executed in a matter of weeks. The decision to launch a war and send troops to Afghanistan had been taken well in advance of 9/11. The “terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event” as it was later described by CentCom Commander General Tommy Franks, served to galvanize public opinion in support of a war agenda which was already in its final planning stage.

The tragic events of 9/11 provided the required justification to wage a war on “humanitarian grounds”, with the full support of World public opinion and the endorsement of the “international community”.

Several prominent “progressive” intellectuals made a case for “retaliation against terrorism”, on moral and ethical grounds. The “just cause” military doctrine (jus ad bellum) was accepted and upheld at face value as a legitimate response to 9/11,without examining the fact that Washington had not only supported the “Islamic terror network”, it was also instrumental in the installation of the Taliban government in 1996.

In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement was completely isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Afghanistan, an impoverished country of 30 million people.

I started writing on the evening of September 11, late into the night, going through piles of research notes, which I had previously collected on the history of Al Qaeda. My first text entitled “Who is Osama bin Laden?”, which was completed and first published on September the 12th. (See Chapter II.)

From the very outset, I questioned the official story, which described nineteen Al Qaeda sponsored hijackers involved in a highly sophisticated and organized operation. My first objective was to reveal the true nature of this illusive “enemy of America”, who was “threatening the Homeland”.

The myth of the “outside enemy” and the threat of “Islamic terrorists” was the cornerstone of the Bush adminstration’s military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to xii America’s “War on Terrorism” mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America.

Without an “outside enemy”, there could be no “war on terrorism”. The entire national security agenda would collapse “like a deck of cards”. The war criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on.

It was consequently crucial for the development of a coherent antiwar and civil rights movement, to reveal the nature of Al Qaeda and its evolving relationship to successive US administrations.

Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda was a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet- Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official documents of the US Congress. The intelligence community had time and again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the wake of the Cold War: “he turned against us”.

After 9/11, the campaign of media disinformation served not only to drown the truth but also to kill much of the historical evidence on how this illusive “outside enemy” had been fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”.

The Balkans Connection

My research on the Balkans conducted since the mid-1990s enabled me to document numerous ties and connections between Al Qaeda and the US Administration. The US military, the CIA and NATO had supported Al Qaeda in the Balkans. Washington’s objective was to trigger ethnic conflict and destablize the Yugoslav federation, first in Bosnia, then in Kosovo.

In 1997, the Republican Party Committee (RPC) of the US Senate released a detailed report which accused President Clinton of collaborating with the “Islamic Militant Network” in Bosnia and working hand in glove with an organization linked to Osama bin Laden. (See Chapter III.) The report, however,was not widely publicized. Instead, the Republicans chose to discredit Clinton for his liason with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

The Clinton Adminstration had also been providing covert support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a paramilitary group supported by Al Qaeda, which was involved in numerous terrorist attacks. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, more commonly known as MI6, together with former members of Britain’s 22nd Special Air Services Regiment (SAS) were providing training to the KLA, despite its extensive links to organized crime and the drug trade. Meanwhile, known and documented, several Al Qaeda operatives had integrated the ranks of the KLA. (See Chapter III).

Click here to find out more about AMERICA'S "WAR ON TERRORISM"


In the months leading up to 9/11, I was actively involved in research on the terror attacks in Macedonia, waged by the self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA) of Macedonia, a paramilitary army integrated by KLA commanders. Al Qaeda Mujahideen had integrated the NLA.Meanwhile, senior US military officers from a private mercenary company on contract to the Pentagon were advising the terrorists.

Barely a couple of months prior to 9/11, US military advisers were seen mingling with Al Qaeda operatives within the same paramilitary army. In late June 2001, seventeen US “instructors” were identified among the withdrawing rebels. To avoid the diplomatic humiliation and media embarrassment of senior US military personnel captured together with “Islamic terrorists”by the Macedonian Armed Forces, the US and NATO pressured the Macedonian government to allow the NLA terrorists and their US military advisers to be evacuated.

The evidence, including statements by the Macedonian Prime Minister and press reports out of Macedonia, pointed unequivocally to continued US covert support to the “Islamic brigades” in the former Yugoslavia. This was not happening in the bygone era of the Cold War, but in June 2001, barely a couple of months prior to 9/11. These developments, which I was following on a daily basis, immediately cast doubt in my mind on the official 9/11 narrative which presented Al Qaeda as the mastermind behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. (Chapter IV.) xiv America’s “War on Terrorism”

The Mysterious Pakistani General

On the 12th of September, a mysterious Lieutenant General, head of Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (ISI), who according to the US press reports “happened to be in Washington at the time of the attacks”, was called into the office of Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitrage.

The “War on Terrorism” had been officially launched late in the night of September 11, and Dick Armitage was asking General Mahmoud Ahmad to help America “in going after the terrorists”. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was on the phone with Secretary of State Colin Powell and the following morning, on the 13th of September, a comprehensive agreement, was reached between the two governments.

While the press reports confirmed that Pakistan would support the Bush adminstration in the “war on terror”, what they failed to mention was the fact that Pakistan`s military intelligence (ISI) headed by General Ahmad had a longstanding relationship to the Islamic terror network. Documented by numerous sources, the ISI was known to have supported a number of Islamic organizations including Al Qaeda and the Taliban. (See Chapter IV.)

My first reaction in reading news headlines on the 13th of September was to ask: if the Bush adminstration were really committed to weeding out the terrorists, why would it call upon Pakistan`s ISI, which is known to have supported and financed these terrorist organizations?

Two weeks later, an FBI report, which was briefly mentioned on ABC News, pointed to a “Pakistani connection” in the financing of the alleged 9/11 terrorists. The ABC report referred to a Pakistani “moneyman” and “mastermind” behind the 9/11 hikackers.

Subsequent reports indeed suggested that the head of Pakistan’s military intelligence, General Mahmoud Ahmad, who had met Colin Powell on the 13th of September 2001, had allegedly ordered the transfer of 100,000 dollars to the 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta. What these reports suggested was that the head of Pakistan’s military intelligence was not only in close contact with senior officials of the US Government, he was also in liason with the alleged hijackers.

My writings on the Balkans and Pakistani connections, published in early October 2001 were later incorporated into the first edition of this book. In subsequent research, I turned my attention to the broader US strategic and economic agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East.

There is an intricate relationship between War and Globalization. The “War on Terror” has been used as a pretext to conquer new economic frontiers and ultimately establish corporate control over Iraq’s extensive oil reserves.

The Disinformation Campaign

In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the disinformation campaign went into full gear.

Known and documented prior to the invasion, Britain and the US made extensive use of fake intelligence to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Al Qaeda was presented as an ally of the Baghad regime. “Osama bin Laden” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” statements circulated profusely in the news chain. (Chapter XI.)

Meanwhile, a new terrorist mastermind had emerged: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. In Colin Powell’s historic address to the United Nations Security Council, detailed “documentation” on a sinister relationship between Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was presented, focussing on his ability to produce deadly chemical, biological and radiological weapons, with the full support and endorsement of the secular Baathist regime.

A Code Orange terror alert followed within two days of Powell’s speech at the United Nations Security Council, where he had been politely rebuffed by UN Weapons Inspector Dr. Hans Blix.

Realty was thus turned upside down. The US was no longer viewed as preparing to wage war on Iraq. Iraq was preparing to attack America with the support of “Islamic terrorists”. Terrorist mastermind Al-Zarqawi was identified as the number one suspect. Official statements pointed to the dangers of a dirty radioactive bomb attack in the US.

The main thrust of the disinformation campaign continued in the wake of the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. It consisted in presenting the Iraqi resistance movement as “terrorists”. The image of “terrorists opposed to democracy” fighting US “peacekeepers” appeared on television screens and news tabloids across the globe.

Meanwhile, the Code Orange terror alerts were being used by the Bush administration to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation across America. (See Chapter XX.) The terror alerts also served to distract public opinion from the countless atrocities committed by US forces in the Afghan and Iraqi war theaters, not to mention the routine torture of so-called “enemy combatants”.

Following the invasion of Afghanistan, the torture of prisoners of war and the setting up of concentration camps became an integral part of the Bush adminstration’s post 9/11 agenda.

The entire legal framework had been turned upside down. According to the US Department of Justice, torture was now permitted under certain circumstances. Torture directed against “terrorists” was upheld as a justifiable means to preserving human rights and democracy. (See chapters XIV and XV.) In an utterly twisted logic, the Commander in Chief can now quite legitimately authorize the use of torture, because the victims of torture in this case are so-called “terrorists”, who are said to routinely apply the same methods against Americans.

The orders to torture prisoners of war at the Guantanamo concentration camp and in Iraq in the wake of the 2003 invasion emanated from the highest levels of the US Government. Prison guards, interrogators in the US military and the CIA were responding to precise guidelines.

An inquisitorial system had been installed. In the US and Britain the “war on the terrorism” is upheld as being in the public interest. Anybody who questions its practices—which now include arbitrary arrest and detention, torture of men, women and children, political assassinations and concentration camps—is liable to be arrested under the antiterrorist legislation.



The London 7/7 Bomb Attack

A new threshold in the “war on terrorism”was reached in July 2005, with the bomb attacks on London’s underground, which resulted tragically in 56 deaths and several hundred wounded.

On both sides of the Atlantic, the London 7//7 attacks were used to usher in far-reaching police state measures. The US House of Representatives renewed the USA PATRIOT Act “to make permanent the government’s unprecedented powers to investigate suspected terrorists”. Republicans claimed that the London attacks showed “how urgent and important it was to renew the law.”

Barely a week prior to the London attacks, Washington had announced the formation of a “domestic spy service” under the auspices of the FBI. The new department—meaning essentially a Big Brother “Secret State Police”—was given a mandate to “spy on people in America suspected of terrorism or having critical intelligence information, even if they are not suspected of committing a crime.” Significantly, this new FBI service is not accountable to the Department of Justice. It is controlled by the Directorate of National Intelligence headed by John Negroponte, who has the authority of ordering the arrest of “terror suspects”.

Meanwhile, in the wake of the 7/7 London attacks, Britain’s Home Office, was calling for a system of ID cards, as an “answer to terrorism”. Each and every British citizen and resident will be obliged to register personal information, which will go into a giant national database, along with their personal biometrics: “iris pattern of the eye”, fingerprints and “digitally recognizable facial features”. Similar procedures were being carried out in the European Union.

War Criminals in High Office

The anti-terrorist legislation and the establishment of a Police State largely serve the interests of those who have committed extensive war crimes and who would otherwise have been indicted under national and international law.

In the wake of the London 7/7 attacks, war criminals continue to legitimately occupy positions of authority,which enable them to xviii America’s “War on Terrorism” redefine the contours of the judicial system and the process of law enforcement. This process has provided them with a mandate to decide “who are the criminals”, when in fact they are the criminals. (Chapter XVI).

From New York and Washington on September 11 to Madrid in March 2004 and to London in July 2005, the terror attacks have been used as a pretext to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. People can be arbitrarily arrested under the antiterrorist legislation and detained for an indefinite period.More generally, throughout the Western World, citizens are being tagged and labeled, their emails, telephone conversations and faxes are monitored and archived. Thousands of closed circuit TV cameras, deployed in urban areas, are overseeing their movements. Detailed personal data is entered into giant Big Brother data banks. Once this cataloging has been completed, people will be locked into watertight compartments.

The witch-hunt is not only directed against presumed “terrorists” through ethnic profiling, the various human rights, affirmative action and antiwar cohorts are also the object of the antiterrorist legislation.

The National Security Doctrine

In 2005, the Pentagon released a major document entitled The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America (NDS), which broadly sketches Washington’s agenda for global military domination. While the NDS follows in the footsteps of the Administration’s “preemptive” war doctrine as outlined in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), it goes much further in setting the contours of Washington’s global military agenda. (See Chapter XIX.)

Whereas the preemptive war doctrine envisages military action as a means of “self defense” against countries categorized as “hostile” to the US, the 2005 NDS goes one step further. It envisages the possibility of military intervention against “unstable countries” or “failed nations”, which do not visibly constitute a threat to the security of the US.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon had unleashed a major propaganda and public relations campaign with a view to upholding the use of nuclear weapons for the “Defense of the American Homeland” against terrorists and rogue enemies. The fact that the nuclear bomb is categorized by the Pentagon as “safe for civilians” to be used in major counter-terrorist activities borders on the absurd.

In 2005, US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) drew up “a contingency plan to be used in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack”. The plan includes air raids on Iran using both conventional as well as tactical nuclear weapons.

America’s “War on Terrorism”

The first ten chapters,with some changes and updates, correspond to the first edition of the book published in 2002 under the title War and Globalization: The Truth behind September 11. The present expanded edition contains twelve new chapters, which are the result of research undertaken both prior as well as in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. (Parts III and IV.) The sequencing of the material in Parts III and IV corresponds to the historical evolution of the post 9/11 US military and national security agendas. My main objective has been to refute the official narrative and reveal—using detailed evidence and documentation—the true nature of America’s “war on terrorism”.

Part I includes four chapters on September 11, focusing on the history of Al Qaeda and its ties to the US intelligence apparatus. These chapters document how successive administrations have supported and sustained terrorist organizations with a view to destabilizing national societies and creating political instability.

Part II entitled War and Globalization centers on the strategic and economic interests underlying the “war on terrorism”.

Part III contains a detailed analysis of War Propaganda and the Disinformation Campaign, both prior and in the wake of the invasion of Iraq.

Part IV entitled The New World Order includes a review of the Bush administration’s preemptive war doctrine (Chapter XIX), a detailed analysis of the post-Taliban narcotics trade protected by US intelligence, and a review of the 9/11 Commission Report focusing specifically on “What Happened on the Planes on the Morning of 9/11”.

Chapter XX focuses on the system of terror alerts and their implications. Chapter XXI follows with an examination of the emergency procedures that could be used to usher in Martial Law leading to the suspension of Constitutional government. In this regard, the US Congress has already adopted procedures, which allow the Military to intervene directly in civilian police and judicial functions. In the case of a national emergency—e.g., in response to an alleged terror attack—there are clearly defined provisions, which could lead to the formation of a military government in America.

Finally, Chapter XXII focuses on the broad implications of the 7/7 London Bombs Attacks, which were followed by the adoption of sweeping Police State measures in Britain, the European Union and North America.

Writing this book has not been an easy undertaking. The material is highly sensitive. The results of this analysis, which digs beneath the gilded surface of US foreign policy, are both troublesome and disturbing. The conclusions are difficult to accept because they point to the criminalization of the upper echelons of the State. They also confirm the complicity of the corporate media in upholding the legitimacy of the Administration’s war agenda and camouflaging US sponsored war crimes.

The World is at an important historical crossroads. The US has embarked on a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. As we go to press, the Bush Administration has hinted in no uncertain terms that Iran is the next target of the “war on terrorism”.

Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel’s participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories.

I have attempted to the best of my abilities to provide evidence and detailed documentation of an extremely complex political process.

The livelihood of millions of people throughout the World is at stake. It is my sincere hope that the truth will prevail and that the understanding provided in this detailed study will serve the cause of World peace. This objective, however, can only be reached by revealing the falsehoods behind America’s “War on Terrorism” and questioning the legitimacy of the main political and military actors responsible for extensive war crimes.

I am indebted to many people, who in the course of my work have supported my endeavors and have provided useful research insights. The readers of the Global Research website at www.globalresearch.ca have been a source of continuous inspiration and encouragement.


Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best-seller "The Globalisation of Poverty " published in thirteen languages. He is Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization which hosts the critically acclaimed website: www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Military Tribunal May Hide 9/11 Motives

Ray McGovern

ConsortiumNews

By Ray McGovern
April 6, 2011

The Obama administration’s decision to use a military tribunal rather than a federal criminal court to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others means the real motives behind the 9/11 attacks may remain obscure.

What? I sense some bristling. “Their side of the story?” Indeed! We’ve been told there is no “their side of the story.”

For years, President George W. Bush got away with offering up the risible explanation that they “hate our freedoms.” The stenographers of the White House press corps may have had to suppress smiles but silently swallowed the “they-hate-us-for-our-freedoms” rationale.

The only journalist I can recall stepping up and asking, in effect, “Come on; now really; it’s important; why do the really hate us” was the indomitable Helen Thomas.

In January 2010, just weeks after the “underpants bomber” tried to down an airliner over Detroit, President Barack Obama asked White House counter-terrorism guru, John Brennan, to field questions from the White House press.

Helen Thomas took the opportunity to ask why the would-be bomber did what he did. The exchange with Brennan is, hopefully, more instructive than it is depressing — highlighting a limited mindset still stuck in bromides.
Thomas: "Why do they want to do us harm? And what is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why."

Brennan: "Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents. ... They attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that he's (sic) able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death."

Thomas: "And you're saying it's because of religion?"

Brennan: "I'm saying it's because of an al Qaeda organization that used the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way."

Thomas: "Why?"

Brennan: "I think this is a long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland."

Thomas: "But you haven't explained why."

One should, I suppose, be grateful for small favors. At least Brennan did not adduce the they-hate-our-freedoms rationale.

So Why?

After the Obama administration announced on Nov. 13, 2009, that it intended to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court for murder, I wrote an article which began by quoting ACLU attorney Denney LeBoeuf regarding some unpleasant facts, such as torture, that the case was likely to reveal.
“I think that we’re going to shine a light on something that a lot of people don’t want to look at,” LeBoeuf said.

Never much for political correctness, I also went into some detail on the light that might be shed on more plausible reasons why “they hate us” — Exhibit A being U.S. support for Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. You will not find much on this in the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM), but there is no lack of evidence.

I included, for example, the findings of a Sept. 23, 2004, report of the Pentagon-appointed U.S. Defense Science Board, which I’d suggest now has additional impact in light of the tumult now reigning in the Middle East and Northern Africa:

“Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States.”

The FCM ignored that report for two months. Finally, on Nov. 24, 2004, the New York Times published a story on the report — but with some revealing surgery in the above paragraph.
The Times quoted the first sentence, but pressed the delete button for the one on what Muslims do object to — “what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights…”
The Times story did include the sentence from the original report that immediately followed the (excised) sentence about Israel.  So it was clearly a case of surgical removal of the offending sentence, not merely a case of shortening the paragraph.

Even More Obvious Revisions

Back to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: as he was being interrogated, the drafters of the 9/11 Commission Report found themselves wondering why he would bear such hatred toward the U.S.
They were aware that he earned a degree in mechanical engineering from the University of North Carolina/Greensboro, and speculated that he suffered some kind of gross indignity during his years there.

Not the case, the drafters were told by those with access to the interrogation reports. Rather, the report concludes on page 147:

“By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”
This prompted the authors to observe later in the Commission report:

“America’s policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world. … Neither Israel nor the new Iraq will be safer if worldwide Islamist terrorism grows stronger.”

As for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s motivation, the neocon editors of the Washington Post waited a decent interval — five years – apparently in hopes that few readers would get as far as page 147 in the 9/11 Commission report, and/or that those who did would have short memories. 

On Aug. 30, 2009, the Post cited an unspecified “intelligence summary” for a brand new explanation of his motives:

“KSM’s limited and negative experience in the United States —which included a brief jail stay because of unpaid bills — almost certainly helped propel him on his path to becoming a terrorist. … He stated that his contact with the Americans, while minimal, confirmed his view that the United States was a debauched and racist country.”

Let’s give the Post the benefit of the doubt. It could be, I suppose, that the above did not come from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed until his 183rd waterboarding session. In any case, the revised explanation of his motives is surely politically more convenient to those wishing to obscure Mohammed’s other explanation implicating “U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”

White House Gives Up

The New York Times article on the Obama administration’s reversal of its earlier attempt to hold key 9/11 trials in a Manhattan federal court declared in a headline, “White House Gives Up Civilian Court Plan.” But what does the reversal mean?

For one, it means there is likely to be far less reportage and publicity than would have been the case in federal criminal court, which normally accommodates a far larger audience. Even plain folks like you and me can go and watch. 

(In 2009, I attended a U.S. Court of Appeals hearing in D.C. that reversed an earlier decision to release 17 innocent Uighur detainees into the United States from Guantanamo.)

Reduced public access to statements made by the 9/11 defendants was one of the specific reasons cited by Sen. Joe Lieberman and other members of Congress for blocking a federal criminal trial.

"Putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a public courtroom in full view of the public gives him a better platform than any member of al Qaeda has been given to recruit new members," Lieberman said in February, successfully arguing that funds should be denied for holding such a trial.

In other words, Lieberman wanted to prevent Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-defendants from having an opportunity to explain their actions in a way that the U.S. and world public would get to hear.

With the case handled by a much more tightly controlled military tribunal, the defendants will be denied that public “platform.”

Even if Mohammed somehow could seize an opportunity, before sentencing, to explain what drove him to conduct the attacks of 9/11, his comments would likely fall like the proverbial tree in the forest with very few there to listen and report.

Favored journalists in attendance would be unlikely to provoke their military hosts or their editors back home by passing along to the readers any inconvenient motives that the defendant might express.
The Guantanamo locale affords the government other distinct advantages. In addition to the fewer attendees, there can be closed sessions for handling secrets and the “CLASSIFIED” stamp can be used virtually at will. Transcripts can be heavily censored — all with very little scrutiny. 

The government also can select the attendees. In the past, military officials at Guantanamo have cherry-picked — and blacklisted — journalists. 

While these restrictions are abhorrent to human rights advocates, neocons can breathe easier, since we are reasonably assured of protection against any renewed complaints about the “one-sided U.S. policy favoring Israel.”

Still, the tribunal approach may further delay justice in the 9/11 cases, since the untested tribunal rules will likely be subjected to many more legal challenges than would be the case in the well-worn rules of criminal courts.

ACLU director Anthony Romero has noted that the military commission system is “rife with constitutional and procedural problems,” adding that the Attorney General’s “flip-flop is devastating to the rule of law.” 

The most serious casualty appears to be the Constitution of the United States, given the dubious fairness of the military commissions and the possibility that some future president might expand their coverage to anyone who is deemed to lend any form of support to “terrorists,” such as perhaps leaking U.S. government secrets.

Kristen Breitweiser, a 9/11 widow and an attorney, wrote that she was given all of two hours “advance notice” regarding the Justice Department’s decision to not prosecute the remaining alleged 9/11 conspirators in an open court of law. 

She asked that we all think about what this decision says about President Barack Obama, the Justice Department, and the United States of America. She provided her own thoughts:

“As for the Department of Justice, it shows their inability to prosecute individuals who are responsible for the death of 3,000 people on the morning of 9/11. Apparently our Constitution and judicial system -- two of the very cornerstones that make America so great and used to set such a shining example to the rest of the world -- are not adequately set up to respond to or deal with the aftermath of terrorism.
“To me, this is a startling and dismal acknowledgment that perhaps Osama Bin Laden did, in fact, win on the morning of 9/11. And chillingly, I wonder whether it wasn't just the steel towers that were brought down and incinerated on 9/11, but the yellowed pages of our U.S. Constitution, as well.”

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as a CIA analyst for 27 years and is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

The Dream Lives On: Famed Civil Rights Activist Dick Gregory Joins Forces with AE911Truth

AE911 Truth

DC Press Conference Strikes Gold

At the age of 78, Dick Gregory has not slowed down in his quest to expose injustice and stand up for the truth

Many people know Dick Gregory as a luminary of the American civil rights movement, who partnered with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other activists to promote racial equality and an end to the Vietnam War. Others recognize him as a popular comedian, whose humorous acts have earned him international renown. Gregory has been lauded by presidents and honored by Hollywood actors over his distinguished and diverse career… but he has set all of those accolades aside to support the work of the 9/11 truth movement – and specifically the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. We recently caught up with him to discuss the impact of this potentially historic alliance.

For Gregory, awareness of the logical fallacies behind the official 9/11 story came early. “I was suspicious of 9/11 from day one,” Gregory recalled. “The way the Twin Towers and Building 7 fell just didn’t make any sense.”

Over the years, Gregory has independently researched the anomalies that contradict the official explanation of the WTC catastrophe, but he was not aware of a group of technical professionals that could confirm his suspicions. That changed on September 9, 2010, when he attended the press conference held by AE911Truth at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Gregory sat in astonishment as Gage and other experts described the compelling case for controlled demolition.

“I was so amazed, because I had never seen the scientific evidence put together like that,” Gregory said.

Motivated by the work of AE911Truth, Gregory announced to the guests and media in attendance that he would be embarking on a two-year solid food fast for 9/11 Truth. “It was such a blessing to see you all take a stand that day,” Gregory explained, “and I wanted to add positive energy to your effort.”

Gregory’s declaration was so moving that Gage was overwhelmed with gratitude. “I was deeply humbled and honored to have a civil rights icon like Dick Gregory support AE911Truth directly and with such a strong statement of action,” Gage said afterward.

Richard Gage, AIA, and others listen
intently as Dick Gregory proclaims his
support for AE911Truth at the National
Press Club in Washington DC

Those who may be concerned about the health effects of Gregory’s decision need not worry. As a vegetarian and nutritionist, he has maintained a minimalist diet for decades and performed hunger strikes for other controversial issues. When asked what his doctor thought about the fast, Gregory replied, “He’s been dead for 30 years.” We hope that his sense of humor follows him into the 9/11 activist work. We need it.

A few days later, on September 11, Gregory followed up by moderating a panel discussion in the “How the World Changed after 9/11” seminar in New York City, and since then, the response he has received from friends and colleagues has been tremendous.

“People have told me that they knew something was wrong with the official 9/11 story, but they didn’t know what to do,” he said. “Now they feel empowered by my decision to fast for 9/11 Truth.”

Whether he is discussing strategy with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. or fasting for 9/11 Truth, Dick Gregory excels at shining light upon the oppression of humanity

Even though Gregory has been a peaceful crusader for many causes, he believes the technical focus that AE911Truth has maintained will allow it to withstand the scrutiny and condemnation that has frustrated other activist groups. “The difference here is that mathematics is the same throughout the world,” Gregory said. “When architects and engineers see your research, it will make sense to them. Now those who feel inspired to share the truth with others have talking points that are backed by hard science and expert analysis.”

Gregory also sees potential in bringing the 9/11: Blueprint for Truth DVD to places of worship. “The churches of America are a strong force,” he explained, “and if we reach out to them with this kind of information, it will make a big difference.”

The continued collaboration between AE911Truth and Dick Gregory is expected to yield positive results in the near future. “We look forward to working with Dick on some important outreach projects in 2011,” Gage revealed.

Gregory expressed a similar optimism about the potential effect of upcoming events: “I hope my endeavors will bring greater visibility to AE911Truth and the explosive evidence that so many have yet to see.”

By stepping forward and taking decisive action in his own unique way, Gregory has reminded us that there are a variety of paths anyone can take to contribute to the push for an independent 9/11 investigation. Whether this means volunteering, distributing brochures, becoming a sustaining supporter of AE911Truth, or making personal sacrifices as an example to others, we all have the opportunity to create a distinctive impact. Just as it took thousands of workers with different skills to construct the WTC skyscrapers, it will take the combined efforts of prominent individuals and average citizens to awaken our fellow citizens to the truth about what really brought those buildings down – and secure justice for all of us that are so deeply affected.