|
Much seems to
indicate a US complicity in the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Facts are slowly
accumulating, making it all look as a big setup. Even the most critical
"left" has been silent on these issues, while criticism is usually
adressed to "the efficiency of war as a remedy to terrorism". Meanwhile,
civil liberties are under attack globally, and the US control of one of
the world's "most strategically significant" regions, bordering to Russia
and China, becomes more and more real.
Long but important article.
**********
1. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
2. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
3. WAR IS PEACE
4. "COLLATERAL DAMAGE"
5. SUSPICION OF US COMPLICITY IN 9-11
6. ENDURING THE FUTURE
7. NOTES (important content)
**********
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY: The enemy within and the foundations of a police
state.
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a
farm want to risk his life in a war when the best 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 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. 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
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It
works the same in any country."
-Hermann Goering
It could be useful to remind ourselves of something we often tend to
forget. We live in the richest and most privileged part of the world, and
we have through history, by the most abominable means, conquered and put
under our control most of what remained of it. This violence is still
alive today, in our political, economic, social, cultural (...) relations
with the rest of the world. But we have recently experienced a significant
and mysterious historic change. The most powerful country in the world has
been attacked with horrendous violence - unfortunately far from being
unusual elsewhere. And as in the past, we can see apologists of our
historical barbarism resurfacing, reinforcing our cartoonish perception of
the world, claiming the necessity of being "aware of the superiority of
Western civilization" (Berlusconi) when it enters this "war between the
civilized world and fanaticism" (Blair), where "even parts of the
uncivilized world have started to wonder whether they are on the right
side" (D. Secr. of State Wolfowitz) The pattern is clear. Bush junior will
give us the choice: "you are with us or the terrorists". The sane urge to
laugh will quickly fade away. After the ruins, the corpses and the dubious
political future of Afghanistan, Washington now prepares to run the second
major act of its "Operation Enduring Freedom". Meanwhile, Western citizens
are still screaming for revenge under their flag - although some of their
freedoms were severely trampled in the rush.
Since September 11, more than a thousand immigrants have been secretly
arrested in the United States. It is hard to know where and under which
conditions they are detained, and if they have access to lawyers. One of
them died in custody, some reports affirm that he was tortured to death.
And after the adoption of the anti-terrorist legislations, the FBI
estimates a "sensible" increase in the number of prisoners. According to
Attorney General John Ashcroft, that "sensible" increase would represent
5000 more arrests, in raids that history will not judge mildly. But even
the Sandra Day O'Connor, justice of the US Supreme Court says "we're
likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has
ever been the case in our country". She may be right. To date, official
policy has already violated three amendments of the US Constitution, while
the trend is also spreading through Europe. And in the mean time, military
courts are setting up, prisoners of war lose their rights, and the FBI
plans to "use drugs or means of pressure" or to extradite suspects "to
allied countries where security services threaten family members and use
torture". (1)
The fearful atmosphere that hangs over the West is also the ideal
opportunity to ram through measures that have met severe popular
opposition for a long time. Jo Moore, special adviser to the British
government, explained to her colleagues a few minutes after the first WTC
tower collapsed that it was "a very good day to get out anything we want
to bury". Her wisdom is understood in many circles. Everybody wants a
share of the cake, while justifying it with all kinds of honorable and
altruist aims. The Treasury Secretary Paul O' Neill calls the American tax
policy an "abomination" and considers eliminating all taxes for
corporations and abolishing Social security and Medicare. He will at least
find an obvious exception: "National defense is a federal
responsibility…but all other outlays need review". It seems the "federal
responsibility" was followed when the Bush administration recently raised
the military budget by 15%, although it already was higher than the
combined budget of the next 15 countries on the list. And the same
deceptive pattern can be seen in trade policy. Robert Zoellick, the
American trade representative has propagated speeches and writings
praising the benefits of the Fast Track bill, that would permit the
president to negotiate and ratify trade agreements without Congress (that
is, democratic) interference. He guarantees that imposing this dictatorial
economic policy is one of the best ways to fight terrorism. The bill
passed Congress with one votes margin in December. It would be surprising
if the strategy was innovated to justify and impose Bush's plans for
militarizing space (through his so-called anti-missile "defense"). All
this is wrapped in the flag and defended by stamping all dissent as
"un-American" and "unpatriotic". In addition, as if this intellectual
terrorism wasn't enough, dissent is silenced with surveillance and
intimidation, if not by straight out criminalizing. Analogies are often
made between the supposed perpetrators of the terrorist attack that killed
thousands and those "vociferating anti-globalization primates"
(Jean-François Revel) - Zoellick claims that the two groups share
"intellectual connections" - they have the same tendency to show a
"violent behavior", according to the WTO secretary David Hartridge. (2)
The totalitarian charges of "anti-Americanism" already proliferated
freely, but it seems as if we today somehow have managed to enter the
domain of science fiction. Those who are cold-headed enough to criticize
what they see are quickly put back into place with methods reminding the
fanatic hunt for communists under the Cold War. "We're talking about
exactly the same phenomenon", says the president of the American Civil
Liberties Union. And the media is the worst guest at the party. The media
watchdogs warn that the freedom of press is threatened, and describe the
media as a "militarized zone". Some journalists with too daring comments
or articles are fired and sometimes defamed to a point where apologies are
necessary "for the country's good". The role of the press in this time of
crisis was clearly defined by the White House spokesman Ari Fleicher, when
he said that "they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch
what they say, watch what they do". After these calls to order, patriotic
obedience and fear choking all independent thought, the media self-censor
at governmental request or by simple "matter of taste", and turn into pure
war propaganda machines. (3)
**********
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH: The bewildered herd and the war for 'hearts and
minds'
"There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if
you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am
paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected
with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any
of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on
the streets looking for another job…If I allowed my honest opinions to
appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation
would be gone… The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to
lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to
sell the country for his daily bread… You know it and I know it, and what
folly is this toasting an independent press…We are the tools and vassals
of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the
strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all
the property of other men…We are intellectual prostitutes."
-John Swinton (New York Times editor, from a speech to the New York Press
Club, 1953)
As we easily can observe, war makes democracy run out the back door. But
it is perhaps one of the best occasions to understand the flexibility of
its definition. The first successful American experiment of institutional
propaganda began before the First World War, when the Commission on Public
Information was created to persuade the American people, mainly pacifist,
to enter the war. Its success was amazing. A member of the commission was
Walter Lippmann, the most influential and respected journalist at the
time. Obviously inspired by his propagandistic experience, he spoke later
about a "revolution in the practice of democracy" where an "intelligent
minority" in charge of the political arena, had to "manufacture the
consent" of the people, when it was not automatically granted to the
decisions of this "specialized class". This "shaping of a healthy public
opinion" would permit the minority to "live free of the trampling and the
roar of a bewildered herd", an allusion to the people, an "ignorant and
meddlesome outsider" whose role is to be a "spectator", not a
"participant". Edward Bernays, another member of the Commission, concluded
in 1925 that it was now possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as
much as an army regiments their bodies". (4)
These propagandist achievements obviously charmed the intellectual
community, and had an undeniable influence on the workings of the
ideological apparatus, like the corporate media. The political analyst
Noam Chomsky points out that "the mass media everywhere tend to serve the
important interests that dominate the state and select and suppress facts
so as to convey the impression that national policy is well-intentioned
and justified… If the dominant interests of a free society call for a
policy of foreign aggression, the mass media will voluntarily mobilize the
population as effectively as under a fully censored system". Therefore,
"rogue states that are internally free - and the U.S. is at the outer
limits in this respect - must rely on the willingness of the educated
classes to produce accolades and tolerate or deny terrible crimes". (5)
And war is of course the worst environment for the media. The journalist
Salim Muwakkil accurately reminds that "the passions of war unleash demons
that must be scrupulously monitored. Had American media been more
conscientious during World War II, thousands of U.S. citizens of Japanese
descent wouldn't have been interned. The German press, though originally
suspicious and critical of the Nazi party, began falling in line after the
1933 Reichstag Fire convinced them that external threats were a potent
danger. And were the pretexts for our entry into the Vietnam War more
thoroughly analyzed, millions of Vietnamese and thousands of Americans may
not have died".
These propagandist ideologies were also the source of the public relations
industry (PR) - another big institution that is mobilized for the war.
According to a recent newsletter of the industry, "PR has a vital role to
play in promoting economic globalization and fighting terrorism" The war
gives new challenges to the industry. The letter quotes Jack Leslie,
president of Weber Shandwick Worldwide, who suggests that the United
States should apply a "Powell doctrine" of using "overwhelming force" to
its communications strategy: "No tactic should be ruled out…every tactical
approach should be considered that can deliver the right message to the
right targets with credibility". Many key sectors have hired PR firms
after September 11th: the pharmaceutical industry, wishing to be
positioned as the "principal source of information to the public" on the
subject of bio-terrorism; the American private equity firm Carlyle (to
which Bush Sr. and other heads of state are affiliated) wanting to hide
the fact that it counts members of the Bin Laden family in its major
investors; as well as the Pentagon, disturbed by the surprising lack of
support in the Arab world for its holy war. As one Pentagon official
explains: "we are clearly losing the 'hearts and minds' issue". The
specialists of manipulation and control of this field therefore have to
intervene. The herd's minds have to be kept on track. (6)
The New York Times recalls that "In all conflicts, winning the information
war has been an essential element of military strategy". But while all the
ideological institutions are mobilized, and the president speaks about a
war between "good and evil" in which his "good nation" mixes peanut butter
with his cluster bombs, it is essential to understand which reality hides
behind this opaque veil of cynical rhetoric. (7)
**********
WAR IS PEACE: "We are a peaceful nation" (George W Bush)
"Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, woman, or child is likely
to be displaced, tortured, killed, or 'disappeared', at the hands of
governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United
States shares the blame." / "The U.S.A. has supplied arms, security
equipment and training to governments and armed groups that have committed
torture, political killings and other human rights abuses in countries
around the world."
-Amnesty International, 1996, 1998
First of all we have to put all this in its context, and remember that the
terrorists of Afghanistan are an American creation - recruited for their
brutality all over the Middle East, they were regarded as the "moral
equivalents of the founding fathers" (Bush Sr.) at the time of the Soviet
invasion, and were heavily financed by the CIA. Surprisingly they have now
lost those charming traits. Benazir Bhutto, the president of Pakistan at
the time, had warned the father of Bush: "You have created a
Frankenstein's monster".
While the pressure went up on Afghanistan after the hijackings in the US,
a Taliban ambassador proposed to judge the Saudi millionaire if they
advanced "solid evidence that binds him to the [9-11] attacks" - this
proposal was rejected by Bush, who regarded it as "non-negotiable". Other
similar diplomatic proposals since then have received the same greetings.
Jean Paul II suggests that "those who are guilty of these acts be held
accountable once evidence is produced, but not others" Apparently a
fanatic and incomprehensible idea in our part of the world. (8)
Legal solutions that should ordinarily be undertaken in this kind of
conflicts exist, although they never are mentioned or discussed in the
major media. A presupposition for their success would of course be that
the US respected international law, quite naïve to expect: "A sign of
Washington's insistence that its hands not be tied was its rejection of
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan's entreaties that any American
military action be subject to Security Council approval " (New York Times
7/10). But the refusal to explore proposed diplomatic solutions, and the
refusal to accept the jurisdiction of UN (incidentally the crimes that are
the US guideline for pointing out "rogue states"), does not prevent the
Western intellectuals to speak about a "just" and "humanitarian" war. The
other voices are effectively excluded from the mainstream, in spite of
their number. The professor of law Michael Mandel, specialized in
international criminal law, explains that "From the legal point of view,
this war is illegal. Of course, it’s also immoral and it won’t prevent
terrorism… The war is illegal because it’s a flagrant violation of the
express words of the Charter of the United Nations. In fact, it’s not only
illegal, it’s criminal. It’s what the Nuremberg tribunal called 'the
supreme crime', the crime against peace". Respecting international law is
far from being necessary in a world ruled by force (at least for the lucky
one on top of the pyramid). John Bolton, the new assistant of Secretary of
State Colin Powell, illustrates it plainly: "international law doesn't
exist". (9)
However, this legal option has antecedents. In the eighties, the United
States launched their first official war on terrorism, with the aim of
"cutting out the cancer" represented by the "depraved opponents to
civilisation itself" consisting essentially of central americans
(remember, the afghans were "freedom fighters" at the time). In that first
war, the US attacked Nicaragua, killing about fifty thousand people ("soft
targets" in military jargon). Not understanding that this operation was
carried out "to promote democracy", Nicaragua went to the International
Court of Justice. The court judged in favor of Nicaragua, rejected the US
claim of "self-defense", ordered them to cease the "illegal use of force"
and to pay significant reparations. The United States answered by refusing
future jurisdiction of the court, and by intensifying the attack.
Nicaragua then went to the UN Security Council, to its General Assembly,
that voted several resolutions asking all the States to respect
international law, all vetoed by the US. It is now the only country in the
world that has been condemned for international terrorism by an
international court, and rejected its judgment and such UN resolutions.
Ironic to know that it is leading an international coalition against
terrorism. This failure of legal processes is merely the consequence of
the natural laws of power. If the United States accepted these legal means
today, the country would have even more world support than they already
have for their murderous crusade. (10)
International terrorism is not a new feature, as the US establishment
wants us to believe since the Communist threat lost its credibility. The
United Nations had already condemned and tried to prevent international
terrorism in the past. A 1987 resolution condemned the plague in the
strongest terms, and was adopted with quasi-unanimity. But two countries
voted against: the US, and Israel, pursuing their long tradition of
opposition to UN resolutions. A paragraph of the resolution defended "the
inalienable right to self-determination and independence of all peoples
under colonial and racist regimes and other forms of alien domination" and
upheld "the legitimacy of their struggle, in particular the struggle of
national liberation movements". At the time, the two countries actively
supported the South African Apartheid regime, and Israel was in its
twentieth year of military occupation, continuing today, possibly taking
its most repressive form ever. (11)
Terrorists are also trained on US territory. The "School of the Americas"
(SOA) forms death squad leaders, mainly active in Latin America (3
concentration camps under Pinochet were directed by SOA graduates), guilty
of "the most atrocious human rights violations" according to the UN. All
this is far from being enough in order to draw a correct picture, and it
would be a mistake to regard these mere examples as an extensive record.
Why would the US to tolerate the limitation of international law? It would
be in total contradiction with the logic of power. "The United States acts
multilaterally when possible and unilaterally when necessary" as many US
government officials have explained their attitude towards the
international community. By the same logic of power, the devastating
consequences of the earlier "crusades of virtue" can only remain
secondary, not to speak of its victims cry for justice. And let's not
forget another very dangerous teaching of this logic: that these actions
are undertaken in the name of "freedom" and "democracy" - quite flexible
concepts, as one can easily note by looking at the paradises that have
previously experienced the blessing of this military humanism. (12)
**********
"COLLATERAL DAMAGE": "Justice should not precede revenge" (New York Post)
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by
his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about
them."
-George Orwell
Now devastated by two superpowers, the Afghan people understand this
clearly. The most tragic part is the silence that meets the civilian
victims of this war. The only serious report on the subject, show that the
civil victims of the bombings already exceed 3700 people, and hundreds of
others have been added since its publication. The most common figure used
today is 5000. This has of course not particularly interested our media.
But the long-term consequences will undoubtedly vanish in the memory hole,
like the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, expected to be
catastrophic. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries of the world,
and has been dependent on international humanitarian aid for a long time.
The drought has made it worse. Before the bombings, the US demanded
Pakistan to close its border towards Afghanistan, and "demanded from
Pakistan the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food
and other supplies to Afghanistan’s civilian population" (New York Times
16/9). The bombing later forced the withdrawal of the international aid
workers who were in charge of food distribution in the country, but they
also made the food deliveries very difficult. The UN estimated that 7 to 8
million Afghans risked starvation, since the assistance could only be
brought at half or quarter of normal intensity under the bombs. Jean
Ziegler, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food to the U.N. High
Commissioner for Human Rights, said on October 15th "The bombing has to
stop right now. There is a humanitarian emergency… In winter the lorries
cannot go in any more. Millions of Afghans will be unreachable in winter
and winter is coming very, very soon". Reuters and AP echoed that “the
United Nations has warned of a catastrophe unless aid can get through for
up to seven million Afghans” (according to several analysts, no mention to
it was made in the US media). The big humanitarian organizations required
"a pause in the bombings" the "immediate reopening of the borders" in
order to avoid "a humanitarian catastrophe", where "the West would be
responsible for a massive tragedy" causing "huge loss of life and
unspeakable suffering". In spite of these warnings from the UN and the
most respected humanitarian organizations, our Western media gave all its
attention to the Anthrax scare. But "bio-terrorism" can visibly take many
shapes. The humanitarian situation is currently critical. Millions of
people in urgent need are almost or already inaccessible because of
insecurity and heavy snow falls. (13)
**********
SUSPICION OF US COMPLICITY IN 9-11: Another assumed candidate for the
memory hole.
"If we hope to understand anything about the foreign policy of any state,
it is a good idea to begin by investigating the domestic social structure:
Who sets foreign policy? What interests do these people represent? What is
the domestic source of their power? It is a reasonable surmise that the
policy that evolves will reflect the special interests of those who design
it. An honest study of history will reveal that this natural expectation
is quite generally fulfilled. The evidence is overwhelming, in my opinion,
that the United States is no exception to the general rule-a thesis which
is often characterized as a ‘radical critique,’ in a curious intellectual
move…Some attention to the historical record, as well as common sense,
leads to a second reasonable expectation: In every society, there will
emerge a caste of propagandists who labor to disguise the obvious, to
conceal the actual workings of power, and to spin a web of mythical goals
and purposes, utterly benign, that allegedly guide national policy. A
typical thesis of the propaganda system is that ‘the nation’ is an agent
in international affairs, not special groups within it, and that ‘the
nation’ is guided by certain ideals and principles, all of them noble…A
subsidiary thesis is that the nation is not an active agent, but rather
responds to threats posed to its security, or to order and stability, by
awesome evil forces."
-Noam Chomsky
This Crusade of Infinite Justice is an Orwellian nightmare. We have been
drowned in propaganda from minute one. Even the small critical enclosures
of the left were carried in the flood. Let's try to clear this up. First
of all, the attack on Afghanistan was not a spontaneous response to the
attacks of September 11. Afghanistan was a target chosen much earlier for
very specific reasons. Former Foreign Minister of Pakistan Niaz Naik
revealed to the press that during a Berlin conference on Afghanistan in
July, "the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed
over swiftly America would take military action… before the snows started
falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest" (BBC
18/09). He forwarded these threats to the Taliban. (14) The respected
journalist John Pilger reports that the Secretary of State Colin Powell
was already gathering support for a war coalition in Central Asia during
this period.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, member of the Council on Foreign Relations and former
national security adviser to the Carter Administration, clears up many
things in his recent book, which purpose is "The formulation of a
comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy". Brzezinski writes that
"America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how
effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained". To
control the continent, it is necessary to control what Brzezinski calls
the Eurasian Balkans - the area of the present conflict, that he circles
on a map. These "Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a
potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil
reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals,
including gold". Oil and gas reserves "that dwarf those of Kuwait, the
Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea". The vice-president Dick Cheney nods. As
former chairman of the large oil company Halliburton, he said in front of
a group of oil executives in 1998: "I can't think of a time when we've had
a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the
Caspian". Indeed, several pipeline projects in Afghanistan - conceived by
the American oil company Unocal - have failed because of the civil war.
But two days after the first bombs, the projects were put back on the
table "in view of recent geopolitical developments”. And don't worry, the
"rebuilding of Afghanistan" is in good hands: The president of the
temporary Afghan government Hamid Karzai was a former consultant of
Unocal, and the US special presidential envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, who will
also help "rebuild" the country, is a former assistant of the oil company.
(15)
Brzezinski says that the area, because of its crucial importance on the
geopolitical level, "threatens to become a cauldron of ethnic conflict and
great-power rivalry". The United States' "primary interest" is therefore
to "help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical
space". To avoid this scenario, he recommends to "put a premium on
maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile
coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America’s primacy". He
clearly states his vision with the appropriate words: "the three grand
imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain
security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and
protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together". He is
thoughtful enough to explain to faint-hearted readers who for some reason
would be bothered by these methods, that "America’s withdrawal from the
world… would prompt global anarchy". I suppose we should all feel
reassured.
Before September 11, tens of thousands of American and British troops were
already heading to the Middle East. It seems that "the control of Eurasia"
will be an easy game. In a Los Angeles Times article of January 5th,
William Arkin writes: "Behind a veil of secret agreements, the United
States is creating a ring of new and expanded military bases that encircle
Afghanistan and enhance the Armed Forces greater ability to strike targets
throughout much of the Muslim world. Since Sept 11, according to Pentagon
sources, military tent cities have sprung up at 13 locations in nine
countries neighbouring Afghanistan, substantially extending the network of
bases in the region. From Bulgaria and Uzbekistan to Turkey, Kuwait and
beyond, more than 60,000 US military personnel now live and work at these
forward bases". The Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz explains that
"Their function may be more political than actually military”. The new
bases “send a message to everybody, including important countries like
Uzbekistan, that we have a capacity to come back in and will come back
in”. (16)
The projects to plans of controlling Central Asia are a true threat, but
not quite surprising. What is on the other hand quite alarming, are the
many indications that the American government had foreknowledge of the
attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. Three months before the attacks, the
German Intelligence agency BND warned the CIA and Israel that Middle
Eastern terrorists were “planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as
weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture”
(Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 14/09/2001). At the same period, Russian
intelligence informed the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been trained
specifically for suicide missions. And Russian President Vladimir Putin
ordered them two months later to alert the US government “in the strongest
possible terms” of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings
(MS-NBC 15/09/2001). Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak also alerted the US
twelve days before the event (AP 8/12/2001). Reports stating Israeli
warnings have been denied by the US government. In spite of these
warnings, the reactions to the attacks were virtually non-existent. The
first reports stated that no air force was deployed to shoot down or
intercept the planes, even though routine procedures are regularly applied
to handle this kind of situations. Two days later, the story conveniently
changed. The General of the Air Force Richard B Myers declared that "When
it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft,
AWACs, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in
case other aircraft showed up in the FAA [Federal Aviation Authority]
system that were hijacked... That order, to the best of my knowledge, was
after the Pentagon was struck". Namely, more than one hour after learning
that four planes had been hijacked simultaneously - for the first time in
history. (17)
There are 26 intelligence services in the U.S.A. with a budget of $30
billion, and many intelligence experts express scepticism on the scenario,
stating that it is impossible to miss the "intelligence signature" of such
an operation. One of them is Eckehardt Werthebach, former president of
Germany's domestic intelligence service, Verfassungsschutz, that told AFP
that "the deathly precision" and "the magnitude of planning" behind the
attacks of September 11 would have needed "years of planning" and would
require the "fixed frame" of a state intelligence organization, something
that is not found in a "loose group" of terrorists like the one allegedly
led by Mohammed Atta while he studied in Hamburg. Many people would have
been involved in the planning of such an operation and Werthebach pointed
to the absence of leaks as further indication that the attacks were "state
organized actions". (18) Which apparently is the case.
The General Mahmud Ahmad was at the head of the Pakistani Military
Intelligence (ISI) since 1999, "approved" for his position by the US
government, and was in connection with his pairs at the CIA and the
Pentagon. The day before the attacks, the Pakistani daily The News
wondered about "the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and
National Security Council". The General was indeed present in Washington
one week before the attacks, in what was called "a regular visit of
consultations". Mahmud stayed there several days after the attacks,
participating in other "consultations" that were concluded by the decision
of US "cooperation" with Pakistan. The country is now the key ally in the
US military operation in the region. But in the beginning of October,
Indian Intelligence revealed a quite interesting fact. During the summer,
the General had ordered a transfer of $100.000 to Mohammed Atta, the lead
terrorist in the hijackings, according to the FBI. The FBI also confirmed
this money transfer. Agence France Presse (AFP) quotes a Indian government
source: "The evidence we [the Government of India] have supplied to the US
is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a
rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism". Considering the
non-existent US reaction to this, and its links to the ISI, we can begin
drawing some unpleasant conclusions about what this implicates. (19)
A declassified document of the US government entitled "Justification for
US military intervention in Cuba", dating back to 1962, gives some insight
in the methods that are sometimes required in order to obey the "national
interest". The document explains that the first strategy in the
"resolution of the Cuban problem" would consist in supporting a "credible
internal revolt". Since that strategy was doomed to fail, it "will require
a decision by the United States to develop a Cuban 'provocation' as
justification for positive US military action". This "provocation" could
consist in blowing up planes, sinking ships and aiming other various
targets in the Guatanamo base, followed by "funerals for mock-victims",
and fictive "casualty lists in US newspapers" which "would cause a helpful
wave of national indignation". The creation of a "Communist Cuban terror
campaign" in Florida would also do the trick: sinking "real or simulated"
boatloads of Cuban refugees enroute to Florida, and "foster[ing] attempts
on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States", so that their pictures
become "widely publicized". And "exploding a few plastic bombs" followed
by "the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents
substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the
idea of an irresponsible government". In short, "The desired resultant
from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the
apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and
irresponsible government of Cuba… World opinion , and the United Nations
forum should be favorably affected by developing the international image
of the Cuban government… as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the
peace of the Western Hemisphere". (20)
Brzezinski explains in his book that "the attitude of the American public
toward the external projection of American power has been much more
ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II
largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor".
But today, there's obviously a problem: "as America becomes an
increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to
fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance
of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat ". (21)
**********
ENDURING THE FUTURE: "Our war against terror is only beginning" (Bush
29/01/2002)
"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national
obligations of obedience… Therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to
violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from
occurring"
-Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal, 1950
Any time now, we will watch the second act of this war, which "will not
end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped
and defeated" (Bush). A war "that may not end in our lifetimes" according
to vice-president Dick Cheney, who recently stated that "40 or 50
countries" are concerned, where the priority is granted to Iraq and
Somalia (and more recently Iran, taking Israeli requests in
consideration). The plans are already being set up. The War Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld asked the Pentagon to "think the unthinkable", after
rejecting it's first "post-Afghanistan options", "not enough radical" in
his taste. Visibly, we haven't seen anything yet.
But the American elites are aware of the vulnerability of these projects
if the "public" should oppose them. This is confirmed by a document of the
Bush Sr. Administration that leaked during the Gulf War. It revealed the
American strategy towards "third world threats" and explained that "In
cases where the U.S. confronts much weaker enemies, our challenge will be
not simply to defeat them, but to defeat them decisively and rapidly" Any
other outcome would be "embarrassing" and might "undercut political
support". (22)
During the many "blitzkriegs" that we can already see approaching, the TV
screens and the newspapers of the "civilized" world will of course
continue their obedient silence. And in this silence, where all innocent
victims will be ignored or buried in various justifications, the war
architects will continue heir crusade of world domination, while living
"free from the trampling and the roar of the bewildered herd", so far
effectively misled, excluded and manipulated, as it should be. So in this
insane world the US president can say, without a trace of indignation from
the Western media: "We're offering help and friendship to the Afghan
people".
But hypocrisy doesn't alter reality. The Western leaders and their
respective herds are now in line behind an "anti-terrorist coalition", led
by the largest terrorist state of the world, carrying out an unprecedented
barbaric world conquest. This is no time for stating truisms about the
inadequacy of cluster bombs in fighting terrorism, which is what most of
the left has been up to for the past months. Obviously this is not a "war
on terrorism", and will multiply the Bin Ladens instead of eliminating
them. The plans have been set up for quite different reasons that probably
go beyond oil interests and Asian markets. But meanwhile, we are passively
supporting policies that kill thousands of innocent people and are seeing
our constitutional rights being eliminated one by one. Our future now
depends primarily on the choices that we, Western citizens, will make in
the coming weeks.
**********
NOTES
(1). For an analysis of the general situation, see "Moving Toward A Police
State or Have We Arrived?" by attorney Michael Ratner. (http://www.humanrightsnow.org/policestate.htm).
He explains that since his last report, "the situation has gotten
unimaginably worse; rights that we thought embedded in the constitution
and protected by international law are in serious jeopardy or have already
been eliminated. It is no exaggeration to say we are moving toward a
police state". The lawyer Francis Boyle shows similar fears: "What we’ve
seen since September 11th is a coup d’état against the United States
Constitution. There’s no question about it. That’s really what we’re
seeing now, there’s no other word for it" (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BOY111B.html).
Facing these developments, Mary Robinson from the UN commission on humans
rights (commission the US has been excluded from) warns that: "In pursuing
the objective of eradicating terrorism, it is essential that States
strictly adhere to their international obligations to uphold human rights
and fundamental freedoms".
(2). On surveillance, repression and criminalizing of activists in the
European Union, see the diverse "observatories" of the European
organization Statewatch, (Surveillance in Europe, post-911 and civil
liberties, and EU plans to counter protests).
http://www.statewatch.org
(3). For many examples of these intimidations, see McCarthyism Watch and
Matthew Rotschild's "The new McCarthyism" (http://www.progressive.org/0901/roth0102.html).
The media's war propaganda has even been noted by Strategic Forecasting, a
private intelligence company that provides businesses with strategic
analyses of international events: "In a paradox worthy of careful study,
however, the mass media have been far more exuberant about progress in the
war" and "have generally engaged in an ongoing orgy of congratulatory
coverage". Thereby "reversing roles" with the military, by acting as
uncritical "cheerleaders". See the report "Media and War: Appearance and
reality" (http://www.stratfor.com/home/0201151930a.htm);
see also the (generally moderate) Reporters Sans Frontières' report "US
media in torment" (http://www.rsf.org).
(4). On the Commission on Public Information (also called the Creel
Commission), see Aaron Delwiche "Of Fraud and Force Fast Woven: Domestic
Propaganda During The First World War" (http://www.greatwar.org/Features/propaganda.htm),
and Noam Chomsky "Force and Opinion" (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9107-force-opinion.html).
(5). Commenting the intellectual atmosphere in these times, Chomsky says:
"It is only in folk tales, children's stories, and the journals of
intellectual opinion that power is used wisely and well to destroy evil.
The real world teaches very different lessons, and it takes willful and
dedicated ignorance to fail to perceive them" On the media, see his "What
makes mainstream media mainstream" (http://www.lol.shareworld.com/zmag/articles/chomoct97.htm).
For a more detailed description of the propaganda model, see his book with
Edward S. Herman "Manufacturing Consent - The Political Economy of the
Mass media".
(6). The major PR character Philip Lesly explained accurately in 1974 that
"The task of public relations must be to curtail Americans' democratic
expectations". For more coverage on the PR industry, see award-winning PR
Watch (http://www.prwatch.org)
(7). The food and drug droppings were of course criticized by virtually
all humanitarian organizations. For example the doctor Jean-Herve Bradol
of Médecins Sans Frontières on October the 8th: "the so-called
'humanitarian' action was in fact a tool of pure propaganda, actually of
small value for the Afghan people" that "can even do more harm than good".
Parts of these reaction were even reported in the mainstream media.
(8). The "evidence" in the report released by the Blair government (which
was the official document justifying the assault on Afghanistan) is almost
embarrassing to quote: "Usama Bin Laden remains in charge, and the
mastermind, of Al Qaida. In Al Qaida, an operation on the scale of the 11
September attacks would have been approved by Usama Bin Laden himself".
Useless in court, and probably won't come close to convincing the Muslim
world. The purpose of this document remains a mystery, but it reflects an
interesting sense of humor.
(9). See Michael Ratner "An Alternative to the U.S. Employment of Military
Force" (http://www.humanrightsnow.org/alternative
to force.htm). For more on international law, see the American Society of
International Law (ASIL) on the web (http://www.asil.org)
(10). See the Judgment of the 27/06/1986 on the "Case concerning the
military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua
v. United States of America)" (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/inussummary860627.htm).
The controversial American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA) was
adopted on December 7 in the United States. The ASPA would empower the
U.S. president to use "all means necessary and appropriate" to free any
American detained by the International Criminal Court, which will
prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, and
war crimes. It also prohibits cooperation of any kind with the court.
Among the few countries that oppose the court, the USA are joined by Iraq,
Libya and Yemen. The director of the international justice program at
Human Rights Watch hopes that "this kind of rearguard bullying" will not
stop the court. See "Waiver Needed for War Crimes Court" on Human Rights
Watch (http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/12/ASPA1210.htm)
(11). See UN resolution 42/159 on international terrorism (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/a42r159.htm)
(12). SOA recently changed its name into "Western Hemisphere Institute for
Security Cooperation" qualified by the senator of Georgia Paul Coverdell
(who supports the school) as "basically cosmetic".
(13). The report on civilian Casualties, written by the professor Marc W
Herold, was released at the beginning of December. View it at
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold/afghan-civ.htm.
The fall of Taliban temporarily gave hope for the food deliveries, but the
disorder that followed, reduced once again the deliveries by half of what
is necessary. The most critical situation is in the areas controlled by
the North Alliance. The Information Services of the Coalition "are
spinning like mad", according to a spokesman of Christian Aid, "they're
desperate to create the impression that everything is the Taliban's fault
so that when the winter does hit they can keep blaming them". OXFAM warns
that "the crisis is far from over", but the NGO's have however managed to
deliver huge amounts of food since December: "If the food pipeline had
remained almost completely blocked - as was the case throughout September
and October 2001 - then the situation would have become extremely
desperate on a wide scale. Famine has almost certainly been averted, which
is a tremendous achievement. However, there is widespread starvation, in
the sense that many hundreds of thousands of people will only have enough
food this winter to keep themselves alive and will undergo starvation for
various periods as a way of eking out supplies". See the two largest
distributors of food in the country: Christian Aid (http://www.christian-aid.co.uk)
and Oxfam (http://www.oxfam.co.uk).
(14). See also "Threat of US strikes passed to Taliban weeks before NY
attack" in The Guardian 22/09/2001. According to another BBC report, the
Bush Administration ordered the FBI and intelligence agencies to “back
off” investigations involving the bin Laden family in January, including
two of Osama Bin Laden’s relatives (Abdullah and Omar) who were living in
Falls Church, VA - right next to CIA headquarters. This followed previous
orders dating back to 1996, frustrating efforts to investigate the Bin
Laden family. Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie's book "Ben
Laden: La vérité interdite" relates the story of former FBI official John
O'Neill, who carried out an investigation on Bin Laden, and had predicted
the possibility of an organized attack by terrorists operating within the
country. The government hindered his investigations to a point that he
resigned in protest. He died in the 9-11 attacks, on his first working day
as head of security for the twin towers.
(15). See Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its
Geostrategic Imperatives", Verso Books, 1997. The Washington-based
American Petroleum Institute, voice of the major U.S. oil companies,
called the Caspian region, "the area of greatest resource potential
outside of the Middle East". For more information see The Energy
Information Agency report on the region (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspfull.html).
Regarding the afghan pipeline, the vice-president of international
relations for Unocal declared in 1998: "From the outset, we have made it
clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across
Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that
has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company". See "U.S.
Interests in the Central Asian Republics - Hearing before the subcommittee
on Asia and the Pacific" (http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0f.htm).
The book "Ben Laden: La vérité interdite" also describes the pipeline
negotiations in detail. In an interview, Brisard explained that "At one
moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban:
'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a
carpet of bombs'". An important link to the Western attitude is that an
oil crisis is approaching. Specialists in the field affirm that the peak
for oil extraction will be reached in the first decade of the 21st
century. One of those is the Geophysicist Dr. M. King Hubbert. For data,
analysis and recommendations, see
http://www.hubbertpeak.com
(16). See Patrick Martin, "US bases pave the way for long-term
intervention in Central Asia" (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/base-j11.shtml)
(17). The day after the attacks, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Air
Force Anatoli Kornukov (hierarchical equivalent of Richard B Myers)
confirms the suspicions: “Generally it is impossible to carry out an act
of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday. We had such
events too. The notification and control system for the air transport in
Russia does not allow uncontrolled flights and leads to immediate reaction
of the anti-missile defense. As soon as something like that happens here,
I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up”.
Hijackings and deviations from the flight course are not uncommon
features. There are routine procedures that are usually followed in such
circumstances (if you can trust official US governmental and military
documents): "[Marine Corps Major Mike] Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said
its fighters routinely intercept aircraft… When planes are intercepted,
they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching
fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a
pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in
the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a
missile." (Boston Globe, 15/09/2001) See the FAA's official policy on
Interception Signals in FAA 'AIM' §5-6-4 (http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html#5-6-4);
see also its Emergency Determinations: "Consider that an aircraft
emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact
and radio communications with any ...aircraft." (§10-2-5) "If ... you are
in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency,
handle it as though it were an emergency." (§10-1-1-c) in FAA Order
7110.65M (http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html);
See also the Defense Departments policy on "Aircraft piracy and
destruction of derelict airborne objects" (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf).
These routine procedures were entirely ignored on September 11th. The more
convenient story, issued on September 14th, said that five planes had been
scrambled from Cape Cod, and Langley - both more than a hundred miles away
from Washington. However, Andrews Air Force Base, responsible for air
defense over Washington, is only ten miles from the city. The DC Air
National Guard is based there, whose mission is "To provide combat units
in the highest possible state of readiness" according to their website.
The 113th Wing is also based there. According to the Andrews website:
"Training for air combat and operational airlift for national defense is
the 113th’s primary mission. However, as part of its dual mission, the
113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of
Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency". Both
websites erased that information in the days following September 11th.
Another indication that the attacks were known in advance was the dramatic
and abnormal increase in sales of put options (essentially a speculation
that the stock will fall abruptly) that were purchased the days prior to
September 11th. Many of the United Airlines puts were purchased through
Deutschebank/AB Brown, a firm managed until 1998 by the current Executive
Director of the CIA, A.B. Krongard. No other airlines show any similar
trading patterns to those experienced by UAL and American. The put option
purchases on both airlines were 600% above normal. And this at a time when
Reuters (September 10) issues a business report stating, “Airline stocks
may be poised to take off”. Investigations in this issue also show that
the CIA and other intelligence agencies monitor stock trading in real time
for the purpose of identifying potential attacks of any nature that might
damage the U.S. economy. See Tom Flocco's 3-part investigation on insider
trading and 9-11 (http://www.copvcia.com)
and Chris Blackhurst "Mystery of terror 'insider dealers'" in The
Independent 14/10/2001 (http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=99402).
The above is actually just scratching on the surface of the aircraft
issues.
(18). It is interesting to see the official investigative reactions to the
most deadly criminal incident in US history. They were non-existent. In
fact, the steel skeleton of the building is already being cut to pieces
and exported, under the protests of diverse groups, ranging from
architects to firefighters. And on January the 30th, CNN reported:
"President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle
Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of
September 11, congressional and White House sources told CNN. The request
was made at a private meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday morning.
Sources said Bush initiated the conversation". The Bush White House has
also drafted an executive order that would seal presidential records
beginning with his fathers and Reagans administration. This has never been
done in US presidential history, and shows how much the administration
wants to be publicly known. See George Lardner Jr. "Bush Clamping Down On
Presidential Papers" in The Washington Post 1/11/2001 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20731-2001Oct31).
(19). See Manoj Joshi "India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links" in The
Times of India 9/10/2001 (http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?catkey=-2128936835&art_id=1454238160&sType=1))
and Michel Chossudovsky "The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)
in the September 11 Attacks" (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111C.html)
(20). The report is downloadable at
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
(21). Dr. Johannes Koeppl, a former German defense ministry official and
NATO advisor, traveled frequently to Washington and met Brzezinski on many
occasions. He has made presentations at the Council on Foreign Relations,
the Bilderberger group and sub-groups to the Trilateral Commission. In the
eighties, he spoke out against Brzezinski and the CFR through several
writings, warning that these people were orchestrating a take-over of
world governments. His fall from grace was swift: "It was a criminal
society that I was dealing with. It was not possible to publish anymore in
the so-called respected publications. My 30 year career in politics
ended". As to the present conflict, Koeppl expresses his gravest concerns:
"This is more than a war against terrorism. This is a war against the
citizens of all countries. The current elites are creating so much fear
that people don’t know how to respond. But they must remember. This is a
move to implement a world dictatorship within the next five years. There
may not be another chance”. He holds a German language website at
http://www.antaris.com
(22). Quoted in the
New York Times 23/02/1991
|
