War on Terrorism - The Real Criminals Remain at Large

“The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.” - - CIA Intelligence Report for President Bush, July, 2001 (60 Days Prior to 9/11)

“President Bush and his top advisers were informed by the CIA early last August that terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden had discussed the possibility of hijacking airplanes.” - The Washington Post, May 16, 2002

The cowboy in every one of us, when confronted by an attack by foreigners on American soil, wants to go “kick some ass”. Our first response is to get quick and decisive justice against those who have done us harm. So it is indeed frustrating years after the biggest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, to have no demonstrably guilty person or organization charged in the World Trade Center attack in New York on 9/11/2001. Yes, our administration has been active deposing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, closing Al-Qaeda camps, deposing the Baath regime in Iraq. And yet all these steps, driven by a “lets go kick some ass” attitude toward justice, have yet to reveal the actual organizers behind the attack on 9-11. As Americans, we are taught to rely on our Government to take care of things, while we watch the news for results of our taxes and volunteer military at work.

Some of us join the volunteer force, and risk our lives in the faith that the United States is right and just in its actions throughout the world.

U.S. Intelligence and Pentagon Had Prior Knowledge of 9/11

(1) CIA agents met with and spoke to Osama Bin Laden during his hospital stay in Dubai, July 2001.
(2) FBI agents who pushed for surveillance of suspect Arabs taking flight school backed off under threat of disciplinary measures by their own supervisors.
(3) NORAD and DOD were trained and geared to defend for the use of the domestic airliner as missile. The scenario of hijacked airliners hitting WTC was first written down in the 1980s by a NY state National Guardsman. Exercises to defend against airliner as missile were conducted earlier in 2001, and–most damningly–on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.
(4) The 911 Commission failed to investigate one puzzling omission: There was simply no evidence that the “official” list of hijackers, released within a week of 9/11, boarded planes that day. Worse, there was no analysis at all of reports in the public domain that seven of the nineteen hijackers are either alive and well or could not possibly have been on one of the hijacked flights that day.
(5) The Bush Administration released a murky video in which a fat person unlike Osama Bin Laden in almost every way discusses with his cohorts how the mission succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. The Bush Administration has never answered reasonable claims that the video does not prove Bin Laden did it, since Bin Laden is not even in the video.

So, in conclusion, it is safe to assume that the U.S. Government, based on its fabrications and outright lies, allowed or even caused the 9/11 massacre. Every action by this government has been in the nature of a cover-up of its own culpability and criminal nature.

Did Osama bin Laden or the group known as “Al-Qaeda” do it?

Osama bin Laden, originally from Saudia Arabia, moved in 1979 to Afghanistan to join the resistance movement (mujahedeen) against the Soviet Union. With his wealth and connections he created the Al-Qaeda organization to supply logistical and humanitarian aid to the mujahedeen, and returned to Saudi Arabia a hero in 1989 after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan. In 1991 a falling-out with the Saudi monarchy over the alliance with the United States eventually forced bin Laden back to Afghanistan.

There is no evidence in the public domain that bin Laden was behind 9-11; the U.S. government has never charged or even accused him! He is a suspect, but at the same time there are persuasive reasons for his organization to not have been the perpetrators. Typically, a terrorist organization will broadcast its reasons for an attack, and claim responsibility. Such has been Al-Qaeda’s track record. From the BBC, Bin Laden himself makes the following statement, “I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act.” In no case has Bin Laden or his organization claimed to have an involvement in 9-11. Bin Laden’s bombings were confined to military targets, and designed to drive U.S. forces from the Arabian Peninsula, in the same manner as the ejection of Soviet forces in the 1980s.

Did Saddam Hussein do it?

Saddam is credited for executing “fellow countrymen”. Amongst these were members of the militant fundamentalist Islamic sects. Saddam’s secular Baathist regime tolerated no inroads on its absolute power, and Bin Laden and his like were sent packing, to Sudan, Algeria, Afghanistan and Pakistan amongst other places. The background of 9-11 hijackers shows that not even one of them was an Iraqi. Given no evidence whatsoever linking Iraq to 9-11, and really no motive at all for this dictatorship to create a public spectacle in New York, Iraq can be assumed to be not complicit in the events of 9-11.

But was Iraq a current terrorist threat, even without 9-11 involvement, which would require invasion under the “War on Terror”? When Iraq possessed and used weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, the secular regime of Saddam Hussein had the support of the United States as a counter to fundamentalist Iran. Iraq was deliberately removed from the terrorist-nations list, and Hussein’s emissaries were assured by Secretary of State Shultz that the use of chemical weapons would not interfere in relations with the United States. With the United States in full awareness that Iraq was using the illegal weapons almost daily against Iranians and Kurds, President Reagan’s emissary Donald Rumsfeld in December 1983 made an agreement with Hussein that the United States would assist in building an oil pipeline from Iraq to Aqaba, Jordan. But Hussein’s Iraq overstepped its welcome when it invaded Kuwait in 1990, and no longer could be tolerated. U.S. bombing raids destroyed many of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and by 1998 under international pressure Iraq had independently dismantled all remaining programs for their development. Obviously, as a nation which systematically executed or deported terrorists, and which had no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq would not ordinarily be targeted by the United States for invasion.

Perhaps some other Islamic Extremists did it?

Apparently, the month before the 9-11, the attacks were the hot topic in mosques in Egypt. “While on vacation in Cairo last August, Connecticut banker Richard Dennison says a shopkeeper in the bazaar told him in detail about planes that would be flown like bombs into the World Trade Center by Arabs in September or October. Furthermore, according to the shopkeeper, the coming attack was a prime topic of conversation at his mosque.” http://www.prisonplanet.com/egyptians_knew_of_planned_911_attacks.htm

“Dennison’s unsettling revelations come on the heels of assistant U.S. attorney Kenneth Breen accusing Amr Ibrahim Elgindy, an Egyptian-born stockbroker on trial in San Diego last week, of knowing in advance about 9-11 and capitalizing on insider information by attempting to unload $300,000 worth of shares on Sept. 10, 2001.”

“In court Breen charged that on the afternoon of Sept. 10, Elgindy contacted his broker at Salomon Smith Barney and asked him to sell the stock, confiding in the broker that the Dow Jones industrial average, which at the time stood at about 9,600, would soon dive to below 3,000.”

The complete list of 9-11 hijackers, complete with photos, which emerged only days after 9-11, was a primarily Saudi-born group. Unfortunately, the source and authenticity of this list which was released to the public is now suspect, since not a single hijacker appears on the passenger manifests, and eight of the nineteen on the list have subsequently identified themselves alive and well in the U.S., Pakistan or Saudi Arabia and unconnected to Al Qaida or other terrorist group.

Lack of Critical Analysis

While the U.S. Government has been active since 9-11, the Bush administration’s creation of a “War on Terror” as an appropriate response not only misses the objective of finding and prosecuting the guilty for 9-11, it seems to distract the American people from this goal. The public believes that our government is on top of things, and if we have to invade Iraq, then it must be for the right reasons. History, however, has shown us that a lack of critical analysis of governmental actions yields fewer freedoms both for Americans domestically, and for innocent people abroad.

This chilling interview in 1946 of Herman Goering in his cell during the Nuremberg trials by interviewer Gustave Gilbert reveals the mentality behind an arrogance in those who covet power in government rather than fight to limit government power,

“Why, of course, the people don’t want war,” Goering shrugged. “Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”

“There is one difference,” I pointed out. “In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.”

“Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Is it possible that Americans have ceded their representative democracy to a dictatorship? Do the American people really have their say through the vehicle of their representatives in Congress, or have they given over their power to a non-representative power in government?

Given the actions of the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, after Congress gave the administration carte blanche to prosecute war overseas, it seems clear that the American people have no idea what the goals are, but at the same time a have great deal of faith that what the President does will be for the best. As a case in point, any talk against president Bush’s “War on Terror” is by definition “denounced” as appeasement of terrorism.

Conclusion

If international justice can be compared to domestic justice, the “War on Terror” is being conducted like a lynching. There is no process for determining guilt other than faith and passion. Like a lynching, those with a particular bias against the accused are heard, whereas there is no public defender with sufficient reason to stick their neck out for the presumed guilty. There is no court, and yet the American public watches the drama trusting its leadership to conduct this international lynching in a morally right and just way. In the end, since someone is being lynched, there is no need to find and bring the real perpetrator to justice.

The real criminals, whoever they may be, remain at large.

http://www.accessliberty.com