Ota 20 ilmaiskierrosta

Ei omaa rahaa, ei riskiä

lauantai, 8. maaliskuu 2008

Ei otsikkoa



9-11 and Israel's Use of Terrorism

to Coerce the West

By C. Bollyn

President George W. Bush, during his January 2008 visit to Israel, is flanked by Ehud Olmert and Shimon Peres, two Zionist terrorists involved in 9-11.   Why are American leaders obliged to serve such criminals?


Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us?
We were a bunch of Russians; socialist Russians.

- Isser Harel, founder of Israeli intelligence,
on U.S. relations with Israel



The first chapter, "The Planes of 9-11," explains that the Israeli military has a history of owning and operating private aircraft leasing and maintenance companies in the United States. 

These privately-held aviation companies, created by the Israeli military and linked to its state-owned aviation industry, clearly had the capability and advanced avionics required to convert Boeing aircraft into remote-controlled guided missiles like those that apparently struck the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9-11. 

Because the Israeli military had the capability to carry out the attacks, the evidence of Israeli prior knowledge raises a fundamental question that must be asked:  Would the Israeli military conduct such an outrageous act of terror?

Millions of Americans have blindly accepted, without any proof, the government and controlled media's tale that 19 Arabs, who lacked basic piloting skills, were responsible for the coordinated precision aerial attacks and subsequent carnage and destruction of 9-11. 

On the other hand, the same government and media have shown absolutely no interest in probing the evidence or looking into the many unanswered questions surrounding the attacks. 

There can only be one logical explanation for the persistent avoidance of the evidence by the institutions that should be leading the investigation.  It is obviously because the evidence does not fit or contradicts the fictitious tale they have presented to the public.





While the evidence is clearly indicative of Israeli prior knowledge, commonly-held misconceptions about Israel and ignorance of Zionism's brutal history of terrorism prevent most people from comprehending the Israeli connection with 9-11.  The ignorance of Zionist history, cultivated by the controlled media, prevents people from understanding the present reality.           
In order to understand 9-11, it is essential to have a grasp of the history of previous Israeli attacks on the United States. This chapter examines a few little-known, but key events in the history of Israeli false-flag terror attacks and the Zionist planners behind them.  The names and events discussed in this chapter are at the center of Zionist terrorism, false-flag and otherwise.          

"False-flag" terrorism means an act of terror planned and perpetrated by one party for the purpose of having the blame assigned to its enemy for political or strategic purposes.  9-11, like many other major terror attacks and those which have plagued occupied-Iraq for years, are textbook false-flag operations.  False-flag attacks are designed to foment hostility or instigate war between groups or nations.

Only very rarely has the United States, oceans away from the conflicts of Europe and Asia, actually been attacked by foreign militaries.  The British invasion during the War of 1812 and the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 are the only two foreign attacks, prior to 9-11, that come to mind. 

Although 9-11 is disguised and interpreted by the government and media as an act of Arab terrorism, the evidence indicates that it was a carefully planned false-flag attack carried out by the Israeli military after years of planning and preparation.




(...) There is solid evidence that Israeli intelligence agencies had prior knowledge of 9-11, which is indicative of involvement in the attacks. 

Public statements made by key terror suspects, the five jubilant "movers," for example, who were actually Israeli intelligence agents, indicate that they possessed prior knowledge of the attacks. 

In November 2001, after being released from two months in U.S. custody, three of the five agents appeared on Israeli television and admitted, in plain Hebrew, that their purpose had been to document the event.  The Israeli interviewer did not ask the men who had sent them, but it is quite clear they were working for an agency of the State of Israel.


The five fake movers from Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, New Jersey, were actually operatives of the Israeli secret services.  The five Israeli agents, described in early news reports as "Middle Eastern," had been sought by the FBI and New Jersey authorities after they were observed celebrating and photographing the destruction of the WorldTradeCenter. 

The Israelis made a video of themselves with the burning towers behind them as they flicked their cigarette lighters, laughed, and celebrated as hundreds of innocent people were being roasted alive. Reportedly, they had worn Palestinian or Arab garb, which was later found in their van.

Two of the five Israelis, who were caught with multiple passports, box cutters, thousands of dollars stuffed into their socks, and driving a van that tested positive for explosives, were actually on a list of foreign agents known to U.S. law enforcement authorities at the time.

ABC News did a follow up on the Israeli agents in June 2002:

The arresting officers said they saw a lot that aroused their suspicion about the men. One of the passengers had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock. Another was carrying two foreign passports. A box cutter was found in the van. But perhaps the biggest surprise for the officers came when the five men identified themselves as Israeli citizens.

'We Are Not Your Problem'

According to the police report, one of the passengers told the officers they had been on the West Side Highway in Manhattan "during the incident" — referring to the WorldTradeCenter attack. The driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers, "We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem." The other passengers were his brother Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari.

The five "movers" were evidently part of a much larger Israeli terror operation in New York City.  The Urban Moving Systems company was later exposed as a Mossad "front" company, a fake agency set up to facilitate their terror operation. An American who worked with the company said he was shocked to see that the Israeli employees had openly rejoiced over the attacks.

In November 2001, the five Israeli agents and terror suspects were returned to Israel on "visa violations" although they had repeatedly refused to take, and then failed lie detector tests about their involvement in 9-11.

Instant messages warning of the attack at the WTC, precise to the minute, sent via the Mossad-owned Odigo messaging system hours before the first plane hit the North Tower, are further evidence that members of Israeli intelligence agencies had very specific and accurate knowledge of the terror attacks – long before they occurred.

In a complex and elaborately planned crime of mass murder and terrorism like 9-11, possession of specific prior knowledge like that held by the fake Israeli movers and the senders of the Odigo messages is clearly evidence of involvement in the crime. 

Had the recipients of the Odigo warnings contacted the responsible authorities in New York, thousands of lives would have been saved. If these people were not complicit in the crime, why didn't they contact the authorities?   

Taking the evidence of Israeli prior knowledge into consideration with the Israeli military's capability to launch such a sophisticated false-flag terror attack, the obvious question has to be asked:  Would Israeli military agencies commit such an atrocious act of terrorism in the United States in order to achieve a strategic goal?

The question whether Israeli strategic planners would conduct a false-flag terror attack against the United States, their most powerful ally, in order to fix the blame on the Arabs, their enemies, raises several specific questions:

1.  Has the Israeli military conducted false-flag terror attacks against the United States in the past?

2.  If so, are there links between the people or agencies involved in the previous terror attacks and 9-11?

3.  Is there a strategic goal for which Zionist planners would conduct such an extremely dangerous and sophisticated terrorist operation?

4.  If so, has that strategic goal been realized as a result of 9-11?


The answer to all four questions is yes. 


The Israeli military has a documented history of conducting military and false-flag terror attacks against the United States. It also has a history of withholding information from the United States about threats it is aware of. 

Specific Zionist extremists are, furthermore, the prime suspects with the strongest motive for having carried out 9-11. The Zionist motive was to kick-start their long-planned U.S.-led "War on Terror" with a spectacular terror attack against the United States.

Like any other crime, solving 9-11 requires that we diligently investigate those suspects with strong motives and prior histories of committing similar crimes. There are a number of senior Israeli suspects who fit this description.


On the other hand, there is no reasonable Arab motive to attack the WorldTradeCenter or Pentagon.  Why would Arabs or Moslems commit such a counter-productive act?  Why would any Arab organization commit a senseless crime knowing that it would invite a U.S. military invasion of their nation or another Islamic nation? The Arab/Islamic terror scenario makes very little sense.




On the other hand, senior officials of the Israeli government, the Mossad, and Israeli military intelligence, an organization known as "Aman," have a long history of carrying out false-flag terror attacks against the United States and Britain, at least as far back as the bombing of Jerusalem's King David Hotel on July 22, 1946.

The bombing of the luxury hotel was ordered by Menachem Begin, the head of the Irgun, an active Zionist terrorist organization during the 1930s and 40s. Begin later became prime minister of Israel, a position he held during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which was led by Ariel Sharon, then minister of defense.

Irgun and Haganah terrorists, disguised as Arabs, set off 7 large demolition bombs in the basement of the KingDavidHotel, which was the base for the British Secretariat and the military command in British-occupied Palestine. 91 people were killed, most of them staff of the secretariat.

The attack on the hotel was the deadliest attack against the British in the history of the Mandate. To this day, the Zionist bombing of the KingDavidHotel is the terrorist act which has caused the greatest number of casualties in the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Zionist extremists, however, are proud of the terrorist bombing as one of their actions that compelled the British to give up the Mandate over Palestine.

David Ben Gurion, the head of the Haganah militia, supported the bombing. Although the Haganah publicly condemned the bombing afterwards, many researchers insist that the Haganah directly authorized the bombing.

"Everything was coordinated with the Haganah," former prime minister and Irgun leader Menachem Begin declared in a film clip from the Israel Broadcasting Authority's "Scroll of Fire" series.




Members of the Irgun, which carried out scores of terror bombings in the 1930s and 40s (and its political successors in the Likud party) hold the world view that "political violence and terrorism" are "legitimate tools in the Jewish national struggle for the Land of Israel," according to Arie Perliger and Leonard Weinberg, authors of "Jewish Self Defense and Terrorist Groups Prior to the Establishment of the State of Israel: Roots and Traditions."

In July 2006, the former prime minister and leader of the Likud, Benjamin Netanyahu, attended a two-day 60th anniversary celebration of the KingDavidHotel bombing with former terrorists of the Irgun and Haganah.  The event was organized by the Menachem Begin Heritage House, the University of Haifa, and the Association of IZL [Irgun] Fighters.

The seminar was held "to mark the 60th anniversary of the bombing of the KingDavidHotel, Jerusalem, by members of the United Resistance Movement (Haganah and Irgun)," The Jerusalem Post noted in its pre-event notices. The newspaper specifically noted that members of the Haganah and Irgun had been involved in the terrorist bombing.

One of the terrorists even led a tour of the hotel he had bombed. The fact that the American-educated right-wing politician and terror specialist, "Bibi" Netanyahu, had participated in a two-day event celebrating the bombing of the King David Hotel was reported in the Jerusalem Post, and in leading newspapers in Britain, France, and India – but not a single word about the event was printed in the controlled press of the United States, the nation supposedly fighting a "War on Terror."


Netanyahu's conspicuous role as the main speaker at an event celebrating an act of terrorism was not reported in any U.S. newspaper until Patrick Buchanan mentioned it in his article entitled "Moral culpability for Qana," on August 2, 2006.

Buchanan's comments, however, appeared only in independent regional newspapers in Pittsburgh, Wyoming, and Ohio:

Rubbing our noses in our own cravenness, "Bibi" Netanyahu took time out a week ago to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the terror attack on the KingDavidHotel by Menachem Begin's Irgun, an attack that killed 92 people, among them British nurses. This was not a terrorist act, Bibi explained, because Irgun telephoned a 15-minute warning to the hotel before the bombs went off.

Right. And those children in Qana should not have ignored Israeli leaflets warning them to clear out of southern Lebanon.

Our Israeli friends appear to be playing us for fools.





In 1946, The Times described the Irgun as "terrorists in disguise."

Sarah Agassi, 80, was one of the "terrorists in disguise" involved in the bombing of the KingDavidHotel.

She and a fellow agent had cased out the hotel. Her brother and other terrorists had disguised themselves as Arabs delivering milk and brought seven milk cans, each containing 50 kg. (110 lbs.) of explosives, into the basement of the hotel.

There were important strategic reasons for the bombing, according to the Jerusalem Post of July 27, 2006:

The bombing was a direct response to the events of the British Operation Agatha and the Black Sabbath of June 29, 1946, during which 17,000 British soldiers confiscated weapons and intelligence documents and arrested thousands of leaders of the Yishuv and Hagana activists.

The documents, brought to the King David headquarters, revealed most of the Yishuv's operational plans and incriminated the Jewish Agency in the leadership of the United Resistance, as well as the IZL and the Lehi, against the British.

The evidence would be used to try the Jewish activists and, quite possibly, to hang them.

Twenty-five fighters took part in the carefully-planned and precisely executed bombing. Six of them, dressed as Arab laborers, placed the seven milk cans filled with 350 kg. of explosives, fitted with timers set to go off in 40 minutes, around the central support beam of the hotel's southern wing. Others spread explosives along the roads leading to the hotel to prevent reinforcements and emergency medical crews from arriving at the scene.





Netanyahu is the son of Ben Zion Netanyahu (born Mileikowsky in Warsaw, Poland). Ben Zion was the former senior aide of Vladimir "Ze'ev" Jabotinsky, the militant extremist founder of Revisionist Zionism and the Irgun.

Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu is a leading advocate of the teachings of Jabotinsky.  On July 8, 2007, Netanyahu was the keynote speaker at an event at the Jabotinsky Institute to mark the 67th anniversary of the death of the founder of the Irgun.

The Irgun was the "armed expression" of Revisionist Zionism, which was expressed by Jabotinsky thusly, according to Howard M. Sachar, author of A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to Our Time:

·         Every Jew has the right to enter Palestine;

·         Only active retaliation [i.e. terrorism] would deter the Arabs and the British;

·         Only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state.




Netanyahu is also a terrorism specialist who has made a career out of promoting the Zionist notion of a global "War on Terror" since the early 1980s.

On September 11, 2001, the New York Times asked Netanyahu what he thought of the attacks:

"It's very good," Netanyahu said, apparently unable to contain himself.

Who else, but a hardened terrorist involved in the crime, would use the word "good" to describe 9-11?

As James Bennet of The New York Times reported on September 12, 2001:


Asked tonight what the attack meant for relations between the United States and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, replied, "It's very good." Then he edited himself: "Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy."


In 2006, the Jerusalem Post and other newspapers reported on Netanyahu's outspoken support for the terrorists who had bombed the KingDavidHotel in 1946.  The Irgun's chief of operations at the time of the bombing was Eitan Livni, the father of the current Israeli Foreign Minister "Tzipi" Livni. 

The high-level political connections in Israel with the Irgun terrorists of the 1940s are an indication of the degree of terrorist influence on the Israeli political establishment, The Hindu [India] wisely noted in an article entitled "Celebrating Terror, Israeli-style" on July 24, 2006.

"We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated," Britain's Ambassador to Israel, Simon McDonald, and its consul-general in Jerusalem, John Jenkins, protested weakly in a letter to the local Israeli administration in Jerusalem.




Eight years after the bombing of the KingDavidHotel, the State of Israel carried out a series of false-flag terror bombings against U.S. and British libraries, theatres, and other government institutions in Egypt in a terror campaign designed to be blamed on Egyptian groups.

This Israeli terror campaign of July 1954 is often referred to as the "Lavon Affair" after Pinhas Lavon, the Israeli defense minister at the time.

In June 1967, thirteen years after the Lavon Affair, the Israeli air force and navy deliberately strafed, bombed, napalmed, and torpedoed an unarmed U.S. vessel, the USS Liberty, and tried to kill all of the nearly 300 crew members, simply to achieve a strategic war-time goal.

Recently released documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) confirm that the United States government at the time had evidence that the Israelis had deliberately attacked the USS Liberty knowing it was a U.S. vessel.


Oliver Kirby, the NSA's deputy director for operations at the time of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, confirmed the existence of the transcripts to John Crewdson of the Chicago Tribune, saying he had personally read them:

Asked whether he had personally read such transcripts, Kirby replied, "I sure did. I certainly did."

"They said, 'We've got him in the zero,'" Kirby recalled, "whatever that meant -- I guess the sights or something. And then one of them said, 'Can you see the flag?'

They said 'Yes, it's U.S, it's U.S.' They said it several times, so there wasn't any doubt in anybody's mind that they knew it."

Kirby, now 86 and retired in Texas, said the transcripts were "something that's bothered me all my life. I'm willing to swear on a stack of Bibles that we knew they knew."




The Israeli planes involved in the attack reported directly to the commander of the air force, Maj. Gen. Mordechai Hod.  Hod (a.k.a. Mordechai Fein or "Moti" Hod) was the Commander of the Israeli Air Force during the 1967 Six-Day War. Hod was from Kibbutz Degania, like Moshe Dayan, the defense minister he served under.


Hod left the military in 1975 and created CAL, an Israel air cargo company. Oddly, after only two years he left the company he started and became chief executive of El Al airlines from 1977 to 1979.  In 1985, he founded an un-named security company, according to his obituary in The Guardian (UK) from June 2003. From 1987 until retirement in 1993, he was the chairman of Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI).

ICTS, the Israeli airport passenger screening and security firm, is a key defendant in the 9-11 litigation. The ICTS website says this about the company:  "ICTS International N.V. was founded in 1982 by a select group of security experts, former military commanding officers and veterans of government intelligence and security agencies."

An employee of ICTS told me in 2001 that Huntleigh USA, their wholly owned airport security subsidiary, had handled passenger screening at Boston and Newark airports on 9-11.  As a matter of fact, the Mossad-owned company probably had people at every airport involved in any way on 9-11. 


The ICTS company website says as much:  "In 1998, ICTS International N.V. made a strategic decision to focus on the US market. The following year, it acquired Huntleigh USA Corp., which provides airline passenger screening services at 47 US airports, including all the international aviation gateways in the USA."


The ICTS company developed out of El Al (the Israeli-state airlines) security.  The Israeli airline security firm went through a number of name changes as it began providing "security" to European and American airports.  Mordechai Hod's relationship with the Mossad-run "security" company at the center of 9-11 will be examined in a chapter about ICTS and 9-11.


Moshe Dayan, defense minister during the Six-Day War, was a close associate and political ally of Shimon Peres. In 1965, former prime minister Ben Gurion and his closest followers, including Shimon Peres and Moshe Dayan, broke away from the ruling labor party, Mapai, and formed a separate minority faction, the Rafi or Workers' List.





The U.S. government, military, and media all went along with the cover-up of the deliberate attack on the USS Liberty to avoid blaming Israel for the murder of 34 American servicemen, 26 of whom died from the torpedo blast, and the wounding of some 173 others. Shimon Peres, the Israeli president, certainly knows who made the decision to attack the U.S. vessel in 1967.


The Crewdson article reveals that the Israelis knew very well that the USS Liberty was an American vessel in international waters – before they fired the torpedo that killed 26 U.S. servicemen in one fell swoop:


Twenty minutes later, after the Liberty had been hit repeatedly by machine guns, 30 mm cannon and napalm from the Israelis' French-built Mirage and Mystere fighter-bombers, the controller directing the attack asked his chief in Tel Aviv to which country the target vessel belonged.

"Apparently American," the chief controller replied.

Fourteen minutes later the Liberty was struck amidships by a torpedo from an Israeli boat, killing 26 of the 100 or so NSA technicians and specialists in Russian and Arabic who were working in restricted compartments below the ship's waterline.





Lt. James M. Ennes, Jr., an officer on the bridge of the USS Liberty, wrote his first-hand account of the Israeli attack in a 1979 book entitled Assault on the Liberty. Lieutenant Ennes' book is documentary evidence that the Israeli attack was deliberate and not an accident of war.


Ennes describes how Israeli torpedo boats repeatedly machine-gunned Liberty sailors fighting the napalm fires on deck and shot her life rafts in the water while an oversize U.S. flag flew from its mast.




The shooting of the life rafts indicates that the Israelis did not want anyone to survive the assault and intended sinking of the U.S. vessel.


Steve Forslund, an intelligence analyst for the 544th Air Reconnaissance Technical Wing in 1967, saw the transcripts from the Israeli pilots and their ground control as they came off the teletype machine at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha.

"The ground control station stated that the target was American and for the aircraft to confirm it," Forslund recalled. "The aircraft did confirm the identity of the target as American, by the American flag.

"The ground control station ordered the aircraft to attack and sink the target and ensure they left no survivors."

Forslund said he clearly recalled "the obvious frustration of the controller over the inability of the pilots to sink the target quickly and completely."

"He kept insisting the mission had to sink the target, and was frustrated with the pilots' responses that it didn't sink."

Chief Petty Officer Stanley W. White, president of the Liberty Veterans Association, said, "The Israeli planes and gunboats spent more than one hour hitting us with rockets, napalm bombs, torpedoes, cannon and machine-gun fire. They machine-gunned our firefighters on deck and they shot our life rafts out of the water…I don't know of a single member of our association who believes that attack was an accident."


There are three reasons that have been given as to why the Israelis wanted to sink the U.S. electronic reconnaissance vessel:

To prevent the U.S. from knowing that Israel was planning to seize the Golan Heights from Syria;

To prevent the U.S. from obtaining evidence that Israeli troops were slaughtering some 1,000 Egyptian prisoners of war near Gaza;

To destroy the U.S. vessel that was capable of discerning that Israel was sending false communications to Jordan and Egypt to keep them in the war until the Israeli military achieved its territorial goals on the ground.

"U.S. intelligence documents indicate the Israelis attacked the Liberty deliberately. They feared she would monitor their plans to attack the Golan Heights in Syria - a move the United States opposed for fear of provoking Soviet military intervention," James Ennes said.


Wilber Crane Eveland, an author formerly with the CIA in the Middle East, wrote that the Liberty had intercepted messages that "made it clear that Israel had never intended to limit its attack to Egypt."





The Tribune article reported that the NSA's deputy director at the time, Louis Tordella, speculated in a recently declassified memo that the attack "might have been ordered by some senior commander on the Sinai Peninsula who wrongly suspected that the Liberty was monitoring his activities."


The activities that needed to be hidden included the slaughter of some 1,000 Egyptian POWs.


Aryeh Yitzhaki of BarIlanUniversity, who had worked in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) history department, said in an August 1995 interview with Israel Radio that a reconnaissance unit, known as Shaked (Almond), headed by Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, had killed hundreds of Egyptians who had abandoned their weapons and fled into the desert during the 1967 war.


Yitzhaki said he had investigated six or seven separate incidents, in which approximately 1,000 unarmed Egyptian prisoners of war had been killed by IDF units.





Sixteen years later, 241 U.S. Marines died when a Mercedes truck packed with explosives demolished their barracks at BeirutInternationalAirport on October 23, 1983. A similar explosion occurred nearly simultaneously at the French military barracks a few kilometers away, killing 56 French troops.


In the wake of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, President Ronald Reagan sent 1,800 marines to Beirut to act as "peace keepers." Ariel Sharon and the Israeli leadership, however, resented the interference and used the U.S. presence to commit a false-flag operation that killed 241 marines, according to Victor Ostrovsky in his book on the Mossad, By Way of Deception.


Ostrovsky, a former Mossad officer, reported that Nahum Admoni, the Mossad director at the time, had very specific information about the truck being prepared for the attack on the U.S. Marines but had intentionally withheld this crucial information from the U.S. military.


"No, we're not there to protect Americans. They're a big country. Send only the regular information," Admoni reportedly said.


Admoni, the son of Polish immigrants, was director of the Mossad from 1982 to 1989. In 1947-48, Admoni had served in the Shai, the Haganah intelligence branch headed by Isser Harel, and later in the newly created IDF Intelligence, Aman. After the 1948 war, Admoni studied at the University of California, Berkeley, until 1954.


The purpose of the false flag terror bombings in Lebanon was to create U.S. animosity toward the Arab world and align the U.S. with Israel, according to Ostrovsky. There had been an earlier car bomb at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut on April 18, 1983, which had killed 17 Marines.  The bombing compelled the Marines to move offshore and President Reagan ordered them to be withdrawn from Lebanon on February 7, 1984.


The Beirut bombing was the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima.  Israeli intelligence is suspected of having been involved in the bombings in Lebanon.





The ultimate goal of creating U.S. animosity toward the Arab world is the Zionist mega-fraud known as the "War on Terror." With its U.S.-led invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the "War on Terror" is the realization of an important strategic goal for Israeli military planners. 


To have the armies of the U.S. and European nations occupying Iraq, the most powerful and advanced Arab nation, has always been the dream of Zionist strategic planners. Benjamin Netanyahu, for example, has explicitly called for such a global "War on Terror" since the early 1980s. 


Although it is never mentioned as such in the controlled press, it needs to be understood that the "War on Terror" with its pre-planned invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, constitutes a war of aggression. 


To prepare for and carry out a war of aggression is the most serious war crime, i.e. a Crime against Peace under the Nuremberg Principles of 1950.  The United States and its allies convicted and literally strangled to death dozens of senior Nazis at the Nuremberg trials for having committed such war crimes.


In the aftermath of 9-11, the U.S. government failed to prove that the terror attacks had been planned, sponsored, or executed by members of the ruling Taliban regime prior to invading Afghanistan.  Six years after invading that nation, the U.S. government has yet to prove that any link existed between the Taliban regime and 9-11.


Nor is there any evidence of involvement by any member of the regime of the former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.  Furthermore, the charges that the Iraqi regime had obtained weapons of mass destruction, trumpeted by senior officials of the Bush administration and Judith Miller of the New York Times, turned out to be nothing but lies crafted solely for the purpose of deceiving the public and provoking another illegal invasion. 


The passage of time does not make a war of aggression and occupation any less illegal. 





There are key people involved in the 1954 Israeli terror bombings of the U.S. Information Agency libraries in Alexandria and Cairo who held high-level positions in the Israeli government of 2001.  There are other Israelis, with long histories of terrorism and strategic planning, who revealed having very specific prior knowledge of 9-11 long before 2001.


The highest Israeli intelligence official at the time of the Lavon Affair, Isser Harel, was evidently aware of the long-term planning of 9-11 -- more than twenty years before it happened.


In 1980, twenty-one years before September 11, 2001, Isser Harel, the former director of Haganah intelligence, the Shin Bet (internal) and the Mossad (foreign) intelligence services, predicted with uncanny accuracy the events of 9-11 to Michael D. Evans, an American supporter of Zionist extremists of the Jabotinsky sort. 


On September 23, 1980, Evans visited Harel at his home in Israel and had dinner with him and Dr. Reuven Hecht, a senior adviser to then prime minister Menachem Begin. 







In an editorial entitled "America the Target," published in The Jerusalem Post of September 30, 2001, Evans related what Harel had told him:

I sat with former Mossad chief Isser Harel for a conversation about Arab terrorism. As he handed me a cup of hot tea and a plate of cookies, I asked him, "Do you think terrorism will come to America, and if so, where and why?"

Harel looked at his American visitor and replied, "I fear it will come to you in America. America has the power, but not the will, to fight terrorism. The terrorists have the will, but not the power, to fight America - but all that could change with time. Arab oil money buys more than tents."

As to the where, Harel continued, "New York City is the symbol of freedom and capitalism. It's likely they will strike the EmpireStateBuilding, your tallest building [he mistakenly thought] and a symbol of your power."

In another article, entitled "Jimmy Carter:  Radical Islam's Ally," Evans related the same story about Harel:

My last question was would terrorism ever come to America. "You have the power to fight it," he said, "but not the will. They have the will, but not the power. All of that will change in time. Yes, I fear it will come to New York and your tallest building, which is a symbol of your fertility."


In 2004, Evans published a book entitled The American Prophecies, Terrorism and Mid-East Conflict Reveal a Nation's Destiny.  In a subsequent interview, published under the title "Is America in Bible Prophecy?" with Deborah Caldwell, Evans explains what Harel meant about fertility symbols:


Caldwell: So extrapolating from the scenarios of the Bible, what do you believe is our nation's future, based on prophecy?


Evans: The story of prophecy that has to do with the Jews goes all the way through to the end of the Book of Revelation. Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24. The disciples said, "What shall be the signs of the coming of the ends of the age?" And he said, "The first sign would be deception." Now, there's never been greater deception then what happened on September 11, 2001.


Caldwell: Why do you say that America's story is contained within biblical prophecies?


Evans: America stepped into the eye of a prophetic storm when it took covenant with both Ishmael and Isaac, the sons of Abraham, the Arab and the Jew…


Most of the Bible talks about this battle between these two brothers, and we're right in the middle of that.


On Sept. 23, 1979, the founder of Israeli intelligence over dinner told me that America was developing a tolerance for terror. The gentleman's name was Isser Harel, the founder of Mossad Israeli intelligence -- he ran it from 1947 to 1963.


He told me that America had developed an alliance between two countries, Israel and Saudi Arabia, and that the alliance with Saudi Arabia was dangerous and would develop a tolerance for terror among Americans. He said if the tolerance continued that Islamic fundamentalists would ultimately strike America.


I said "Where?"


He said, "In Islamic theology, the phallic symbol is very important. Your biggest phallic symbol is New York City and your tallest building will be the phallic symbol they will hit." Isser Harel prophesied that the tallest building in New York would be the first building hit by Islamic fundamentalists 21 years ago.



The "Is America in Bible Prophecy?" interview with Evans is published on-line on Beliefnet, a Zionist propaganda network disguised as a religious website. Steven Waldman is CEO, Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Beliefnet. Previously, Waldman was National Editor of US News & World Report, National Correspondent for Newsweek in the Washington bureau and editor of the Washington Monthly.  One of Beliefnet's directors is Michael S. Perlis, the former President of the Playboy Publishing Group.



Think about this for a minute. The founder of Israeli intelligence tells an American Zionist in 1980 that Arab terrorism will come to America and that the terrorists will strike the tallest building in New York City. His bizarre prediction, which makes no sense, then comes to pass 13 years later with a hapless and thoroughly fake attack in 1993, evidently arranged by the FBI.


The FBI-coordinated false-flag terror event is followed, 8 years later, by a spectacular, well-planned, and extremely lethal attack which kills thousands.  How did Isser Harel know what the Arab terrorists had planned more than two decades before 9-11?





Under David Ben Gurion, Isser Harel was the former chief of Haganah intelligence (Shai) from 1944, the Shin Bet from 1948, and the Mossad until 1963. Admoni, the Mossad director who refused to warn the U.S. Marines in 1983, had served under Harel.


Given his unique position and penchant for terrorism as a means of coercion, the uncanny accuracy of Harel's prediction says more about the years of Israeli planning that went into 9-11 than it does about any criminal plots of alleged Arab origin.


After nearly two decades as the head of Israeli intelligence, Ben Gurion reportedly asked Harel to resign in 1963 because of his use of terrorism bombings as a means of coercion against the West. 


Harel, as director of the Mossad, had initiated "The Damocles Operation" of the early 1960s, which was a terror bombing campaign to threaten German scientists from helping Egypt develop its defense systems.

Two Mossad agents were arrested and jailed in Switzerland for using terror bombs against German scientists. The wife of one scientist was killed in a mysterious explosion, a second scientist disappeared, and the secretary of a third scientist was blinded and mutilated by a mail bomb in Cairo.


As Ian Black and Benny Morris, authors of Israel's Secret Wars: A History of Israel's Intelligence Services, wrote:

Dr. Heinz Krug, director of a Munich-based Egyptian front company called Intra, had disappeared mysteriously and was presumed murdered in September 1962.

On 7 October Harel [Isser Harel, Mossad head] left for Europe 'to personally supervise authorized operations and the special collection programme.'

In November, Aman [IDF intelligence] sent several letter bombs to the rocket installations in Egypt and one of them, a large parcel that had been mailed by sea from Hamburg, killed five Egyptians. Someone with a black sense of humour dubbed the campaign 'post mortem.'  


It should be noted that Yosef Goell, a columnist with the Jerusalem Post, published an editorial entitled "Isser Harel and the German Scientists" on February 22, 1991, in which Israel's international newspaper delivered a threat of Harel-type terrorism to European scientists and companies doing business with Arab nations:

The directors and managers of those firms and the experts who work for them should be reminded that they are playing with their lives and the welfare of their families. It would be well if they went back and studied the episode of Isser Harel and the German scientists in Nasser's missile program of the 1960s.





The Lavon Affair, or "the shameful affair" (Esek Habish) as it is known in Hebrew, was an Israeli false-flag terror bombing campaign against the United States and Britain that was carried out in Egypt in 1954.


Israeli military intelligence had set up a terror cell of sleeper agents in Egypt, which was activated in July 1954 to blow up U.S. and British targets.


The Israeli operation was code-named "Susannah." The false-flag terrorist bombings were meant to be blamed on Egyptians in order to alienate the U.S. and Britain from President Gamal Abdul Nasser and prevent Egypt from nationalizing the Suez Canal. 


The Lavon Affair is seldom discussed in the media or in university courses on Middle Eastern history.  Strict censorship in the Israeli media even prevented the Israeli public from knowing about the affair for many years. 


Only in 2005, fifty-one years after the bombings, did Israel finally admit responsibility for its 1954 false-flag terrorist bombing campaign in Egypt.


The false-flag terror bombings were carried out between July 2 and July 27, 1954 by a covert terror cell composed of about one dozen Egyptian Jews under the command of Israeli intelligence agents.


The Israeli-run terror cell was discovered and broken up on July 27, 1954, when one of its members was caught in Alexandria after the bomb he was carrying exploded.


An Israeli terrorist cell, Unit 131, was reportedly responsible for the terror bombings.  At the time of the terror bombings, Unit 131 is said to have been the subject of a dispute between Aman and Mossad over who controlled it.  How convenient.


The Egyptian operatives had been recruited several years before, when an Israeli intelligence officer named Avram Dar went to Cairo posing as John Darling, a British citizen from Gibraltar. Dar recruited Egyptian Jews, who had helped with illegal emigration to Israel, and trained them for covert operations.


The Israeli terror cell went to work in the summer of 1954. On July 2, a post office in Alexandria was firebombed.  On July 14, the U.S. Information Agency libraries in Alexandria and Cairo and a British theater were bombed. The bombs contained nitroglycerine and were placed on the shelves of the libraries.


After the terrorist cell was discovered, three of the Israeli terrorist commanders succeeded in fleeing Egypt and the fourth committed suicide.  After the trial in Cairo, two of the accused Egyptian Jews were condemned to death and executed, and eight were condemned to long terms of imprisonment.





The Israeli prime minister and foreign minister at the time, Moshe Sharett, was evidently unaware of the intrigue, which had apparently been carried out by disciples of David Ben Gurion, namely Isser Harel, Moshe Dayan, and Shimon Peres.


Sharett (born Shertok in Cherson, Ukraine) was Israel's first foreign minister (May 15, 1948 – June 18, 1956) and second prime minister (Dec. 7, 1953 – Nov. 2, 1955). Sharett held both positions at the time of the Israeli terror campaign.


Sharett, who appears to have known nothing about the terror ring, only became informed of the facts afterwards. 


In October 1953, shortly before Ben Gurion took a two-year hiatus in the NegevDesert leaving Sharett in charge, he appointed Pinhas Lavon, a staunch supporter of the "retaliation" [i.e. terrorism] policy, as minister of defense, and nominated Moshe Dayan as chief of staff of the armed forces.


When Sharett was told of Ben Gurion's decision to nominate Dayan as chief of staff, he penned this note in his diary:  "The new chief of staff's immense capacity for plotting and intrigue-making will yield many complications."





Pinhas Lavon, Israel's minister of defense at the time of the terror bombings, was part of a group of military leaders who advocated the use of terrorism against the Western nations, particularly Britain and the United States.  This group included the Polish-born immigrants David Ben Gurion and Shimon Peres (Szymon Persky), and Moshe Dayan, the kibbutznik son of Ukrainian immigrants.


In January 1955, Sharett wrote about Lavon to Aharon Barkatt, secretary general of the Mapai party:

He [Lavon] inspired and cultivated the negative adventuristic trend in the army and preached the doctrine that not the Arab countries but the Western Powers are the enemy, and the only way to deter them from their plots is through direct actions that will terrorize them. 

When the Israeli terrorist plot against Britain and the U.S. was exposed, Ben Gurion blamed Lavon, who, in turn, blamed Col. Benjamin Givli, another Ben Gurion protégé and the head of Aman, Israeli military intelligence.  Lavon said that Givli had organized the covert operation behind his back.





Prime Minister Sharett, however, had "no doubts about the guilt of the Dayan-Peres-Givli clique," according to the late Israeli historian Livia Rokach, the daughter of Israel Rokach, the former mayor of Tel Aviv and minister of internal affairs in the Sharett government: 

For him [Sharett], the question of who gave the order was secondary to the necessity of pronouncing a judgment on the ideology and politics of Israel's terrorism. Therefore, while he had no doubts about the guilt of the Dayan-Peres-Givli clique; to him Lavon's political responsibility was also inescapable.

As Sharett wrote about Lavon on January 10, 1955:

[People] ask me if I am convinced that "he gave the order?"… but let us assume that Givli has acted without instructions… doesn't the moral responsibility lie all the same on Lavon, who has constantly preached for acts of madness and taught the army leadership the diabolic lesson of how to set the Middle East on fire, how to cause friction, cause bloody confrontations, sabotage targets and property of the Powers [and perform] acts of despair and suicide?"

As a "moderate Zionist," Sharett believed that Israel's survival would be impossible without the support of the West, Rokach wrote, but that Western "morality" and interests in the Middle East would not support a Jewish state which "behaves according to the laws of the jungle" and "raises terrorism to the level of a sacred principle."





In May 1947, Ben Gurion drafted Shimon Peres into the Haganah high command, where he was initially put in charge of manpower and later became involved in arms procurement and production.


Peres served as chief of the naval department in 1948 and was sent to the United States in 1950 on an arms procurement mission.


Peres was instrumental in acquiring weapons for the Haganah and establishing the Israeli defense industries, especially the aircraft and avionics industries, according to his biography.  He is also known as the godfather of the Israel's hi-tech defense industries and illegal nuclear arsenal.


Peres built an alliance with France that secured a source of arms, and was responsible for the program to develop nuclear weapons for Israel, convincing the French to help Israel build a secret nuclear reactor at Dimona in the NegevDesert in 1957.


It was Peres who acquired the French advanced Dassault Mirage III jet fighters that the Israeli air force used to attack the USS Liberty in 1967.


About Shimon Peres, whom Sharett considered to be one of the key planners of the terror bombing campaign of U.S. institutions in Egypt, he wrote this note in 1955: 


Peres shares the same ideology [as Lavon]: he wants to frighten the West into supporting Israel's aims.


Two years later, in 1957, Sharett wrote even more critically about Peres: 


I have stated that I totally and utterly reject Peres and consider his rise to prominence a malignant, immoral disgrace. I will rend my clothes in mourning for the State if I see him become a minister in the Israeli government.


Sharett's terrorism and violence-prone adversaries: Ben Gurion, Dayan, and Peres, however, prevailed and dealt "a crushing blow" to "the very hypothesis of moderate Zionism," Rokach concluded:  

In the final analysis the West, and in particular the U.S., let itself be frightened, or blackmailed, into supporting Israel's megalomaniac ambitions, because an objective relationship of complicity already existed and because once pushed into the open this complicity proved capable of serving the cause of Western power politics in the region. 

The immense profits that have flowed into the coffers of Western drug and oil cartels as a consequence of the Anglo-American control over the opium production of occupied-Afghanistan and the oil of occupied-Iraq amply illustrate Rokach's point that Israeli false-flag terror is "capable of serving the cause of Western power politics in the region."


As Rokach concluded in her study of Sharett's diary and documents:

Just as Zionism, based on the de-Palestinization and the Judaisation of Palestine, was intrinsically racist and immoral, thus the West, in reality, had no use for a Jewish state in the Middle East which did not behave according to the laws of the jungle, and whose terrorism could not be relied on as a major instrument for the oppression of the peoples of the region.

By April 1957, Sharett realized that the hard-line terrorist faction headed by Ben Gurion and his protégés Dayan and Peres had won – and that he, and his vision of moderate Zionism, had lost:

I go on repeating to myself nowadays, "Admit that you are the loser!" They showed much more daring and dynamism…they played with fire, and they won…The public, even your own public, does not share your position. On the contrary…the public now turns even against its "masters" and its bitterness against the retreat [from Sinai and Gaza] is developing into a tendency to change the political balance in this country in favor of [the former Irgun terrorist leader Menachem] Begin. 

"His [Sharett's] defeat in internal Israeli politics reflected the ascendancy of the positions of Ben Gurion, Dayan and others [Peres] who were not reluctant to use force to attain their goals," Noam Chomsky wrote in his forward to Rokach's book: 

His diaries give a very revealing picture of the developing conflict, as he perceived it, and offer an illuminating insight into the early history of the state of Israel, with ramifications that reach to the present, and beyond.

9-11 and the "War on Terror" are clearly two "ramifications" of the victory of the terrorist Zionists that "reach to the present."


Had Moshe Sharett, the Israeli prime minister, "spoken frankly and directly to public opinion" and torn up "the mask of secrecy" surrounding the Israeli terror bombings, he could have changed the history of the Middle East, Rokach wrote:

At this point, Sharett could have changed the history of the Middle East had he spoken frankly and directly to public opinion, which was deeply troubled by the events in Egypt: the arrests, the trial, the executions, the contradicting rumors, the climate of intrigue surrounding the "Affair." [By] tearing up the mask of secrecy, denouncing those who were responsible, exposing his true convictions in regard to Israel's terroristic ideologies and orientations, [and] proposing an alternative, he could have created for himself the conditions in which to use the formal powers that he possessed to make a radical housecleaning in the security establishment. The impact of such an act would have probably been considerable not only in Israel itself but also in the Arab world, especially in Egypt. The downfall of Lavon on one hand and of the Ben Gurionist gang, headed by Dayan and Peres, on the other hand might have blocked Ben Gurion's return to power, and in the longer range, the Sinai-Suez war. Events since then would have taken a different course.

Unfortunately, "the Ben Gurionist gang, headed by Dayan and Peres" came to power.  Peres, who had served in high-level appointed positions, was elected to the Knesset in the 1959 elections.  Peres, the former Director General of the Ministry of Defense under Moshe Dayan, then became the Deputy Defense Minister, a position he held until 1965 when he was implicated, with Dayan, in the Lavon affair.


On June 5, 1967, Israel started the Six-Day War when it launched a pre-emptive attack against Egypt and its air force. Yitzhak Rabin was chief of staff and Moshe Dayan was minister of defense during this crucial war that reshaped the Middle East.


Ben Gurion and his gang of Dayan and Peres formed a new party in 1965, Rafi, partly due to their involvement in the Lavon Affair. Dayan and Peres had worked closely together since their days in the Haganah.





Shimon Peres, a most unsuitable recipient of the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize, has a long history of terrorism, which is evidently not well known in the West.  Peres, the 84-year-old president of the State of Israel, has a documented record of involvement in terrorist crimes over a period of more than 5 decades.



Peres is a survivor of the struggle among Zionists between the militant hard-liners, who promoted the use of violence and terrorism, versus the softer "moderates," who opposed terrorism and advocated the use of diplomacy.  


Shimon Peres is a hard-liner.  Born Szymon Persky in Wiszniew, Poland, on August 2, 1923, Peres is the first cousin of Lauren Bacall, the Brooklyn-born Betty Joan Persky.  This relationship between the veteran hard-line Zionist and a Hollywood movie star is a good example of how Zionist Jewish families from the Pale of Settlement often established branches in Israel and the United States in the early 1900s. 


In 1947, the Polish-born Zionist leader David Ben Gurion (born David Grün) met the 23-year-old Peres at Haganah headquarters and made him responsible for manpower and arms purchases for the underground Zionist militia he commanded in Palestine.


Peres became a protégé of Ben Gurion. After the bombing of the KingDavidHotel and other terror killings by the Haganah and other Zionist terror gangs, the British withdrew from Palestine. 


The armed gangs of Zionist immigrants and veterans of the Red Army then turned their terrorist skills, which some had gained during World War II, against the indigenous population of Palestine.  Nearly 400 Palestinian towns and villages were completely obliterated or "ethnically cleansed" during the 1947-48 Zionist conquest of Palestine. 


Peres was also the chief of the Israeli navy, whose main task at the time was the illegal smuggling of men and arms for the Zionist forces in Palestine. 


When the 1947-48 war ended, Peres "assumed the position of Director of the Defense Ministry's procurement delegation in the United States," according to his biography.


As director of arms procurement in the United States, Peres was responsible for organizing illegal arms smuggling.  Transfers of weapons and planes to Zionist forces violated the U.S. Neutrality Act. 


Much of the Haganah arms smuggling activity was run from an office above the "syndicate-owned" Copacabana Club in New York City, where Peres and Teddy Kollek, the Hungarian-born son of the director of the Rothschild bank in Vienna, worked closely with the "crime syndicate" headed by the leading Jewish gangsters of the time.


After World War II, Kollek was sent to New York, where he worked as the Haganah representative and head of its weapons purchasing team in New York.  Kollek worked from an office above the Copacabana nightclub in the Haganah's Hotel Fourteen to arm the Zionist forces in British-occupied Palestine.


Ben Gurion and Haganah gun-runner Teddy Kollek


Also deeply involved in this criminal arms smuggling activities were the American Jews, Adolph "Al" Schwimmer and Hank Greenspun.  Greenspun, the Las Vegas-based publicist for mobster Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel, was eventually pardoned for his crimes by President Bill Clinton, a close friend of the Greenspun family.


In 1951, at the request of Ben Gurion, Schwimmer and Peres founded Bedek, the military's aviation firm that became Israel's largest company, Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI).


In 1952, the same year Ben Gurion made Isser Harel the head of the Mossad, he appointed Peres to be Deputy Director General of the Ministry of Defense. 


The next year, at the age of 29, Peres became the youngest ever Director General of the Defense Ministry, a position he held until 1959.  It is interesting to note that Peres never attended university or served in the army, according to Ha'aretz (Israel) of June 14, 2007.


As Director General, Peres was a founder of Israel's military and its subsidiary, Israel Aircraft Industries. Ben Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, put Peres in charge of the establishment of the Israel's unlawful nuclear program and secret reactor at Dimona in the NegevDesert.


Peres has never been very popular with Israeli voters.  Although he served twice as prime minister, he was never elected to that position.  In 2000, he even lost a parliamentary election for the presidency to Moshe Katsav, an Iranian Jewish immigrant. 


In July 2007, at nearly 84 years of age, Peres finally won the presidency, but only after Katsav was forced to leave office under a storm of allegations of rape and sexual misconduct.


One might wonder why an 84-year-old man would even want to be president.  Is this an example of the maxim, "no rest for the wicked?"  Is Peres still working because he needs to protect the critical secrets about 9-11 and the war agenda it launched?


Oddly, prior to 9-11, Peres, a politician from the left, held the most powerful positions of Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister in a government led by a prime minister from the extreme right, Ariel Sharon.  Sharon, now reportedly comatose, is a well known terrorist, war monger, and war criminal with a long record of committing atrocities in Palestine and Lebanon.  Peres held these highest level positions in the Israeli government from March 3, 2001 until November 2, 2002.


Peres, godfather and chief architect of Israel's high tech military and unlawful nuclear arsenal, is a person who has always supported the use of terror to coerce the West to support Israel's strategic goals.  He has been involved, at the highest level, in numerous covert false-flag terrorist operations, such as the Lavon Affair, which was even kept secret from the Israeli prime minister at the time.  




Did Peres use his senior position in a government of like-minded war mongering terrorists to launch the false-flag terror attacks of 9-11 in order to coerce the United States and the West into the Zionist planned "War on Terror?"

Shimon Peres has the credentials of a Zionist arch-terrorist.  Furthermore, he has the record, the worldview, and the capability to be an architectural level planner of 9-11.  Is Peres one of the masterminds behind the terrorist crime of the century?  Were Isser Harel and Mordechai Hod also involved in the planning of 9-11? 


To determine the identity of the architectural level planners of 9-11 we will need a better understanding of how the terrorist aerial attacks were carried out during and within the context of U.S. and international military anti-terrorist exercises and drills that included the exact scenario of a passenger plane crashing into a military building near the Pentagon.   






ABC News, "The White Van: Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?" June 22, 2002


Bennet, James, "A Day of Terror: The Israelis," The New York Times, September 12, 2001


Crewdson, John, "Special Report: New revelations in attack on American spy ship," Chicago Tribune, October 2, 2007


Evans, Michael D., "Is America in Bible Prophecy?" Deborah Caldwell interview with Michael D. Evans, August 2004



Joffe, Lawrence, Obituary: "Mordechai Hod: Israeli air force mastermind behind the six day war," The Guardian (London, England), July 2, 2003


Melman, Yossi, "Israeli communications said to prove IAF knew Liberty was U.S. ship," Haaretz, October 4, 2007


Ostrovsky, Victor, and Hoy, Claire, By War of Deception: The making and unmaking of a Mossad Officer, St. Martin's Press, 1990


Perliger, Arie and Weinberg, Leonard, "Jewish Self Defense and Terrorist Groups Prior to the Establishment of the State of Israel: Roots and Traditions," Totalitarian Movements & Political Religions, Vol. 4, No. 3 (2003) pp. 91-118.


Prince-Gibson, Eetta, "Reflective truth," The Jerusalem Post (Israel), July 27, 2006


Rokach, Livia, Israel's Sacred Terrorism, 1980



Sachar, Howard M., A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to Our Time History of Israel, New York: Knopf, 1976 (3rd Edition, 2007)


Smyth, David, Associated Press, "Americans Rebut Israeli Version of 1967 Attack on U.S. Ship," Lexington Herald-Leader (KY), October 29, 1984


Suroor, Hasan, "Celebrating Terror, Israeli-style," The Hindu (Madras, India), July 24, 2006

Mossad & CIA Committed 9-11: Italian President Francesco Cossiga

Posted By: ChristopherBollyn
Date: Saturday, 8 December 2007

In Response To: TOP SECRET - Ehud Olmert's Pre-9/11 Visit to NYC (ChristopherBollyn)
9-11 Was Planned and Realized by CIA and Mossad with Help of Zionists

On 30 November 2007, Francesco Cossiga, former president of Italy, told the respected Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned and realized by the CIA and Mossad. He is stating the obvious.

I have always said that the intelligence agencies of the leading nations of the world are certainly very well aware that the official version is a fraud. The largest media networks are also aware of the 9-11 hoax, primarily because of their fundamental role in perpetrating this fraud on the public. The people are always the last to know the truth.

President Francesco Cossiga

The following is a translation of what President Cossiga said:

From circles around Palazzo Chigi, nerve centre of direction of Italian intelligence, it is noted that the non-authenticity of the video is testified from the fact that Osama bin Laden in it 'confessed' that Al Qaeda would have been the author of the attack of the 11 September on the Twin Towers in New York, while all of the democratic circles of America and of Europe, in the front lines being those of the Italian centre-left, now know well that the disastrous attack was planned and realized by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and to persuade the Western powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For this, no word of solidarity arrived to Silvio Berlusconi, who has been the author of the brilliant falsification, neither from the Quirinale, nor from Palazzo Chigi, nor from representatives of the centre-left!

Cossiga had expressed his doubts about 9/11, and is quoted in Webster Tarpley's book:

The mastermind of the attack must have been a "sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.

The following is Cossiga's comments in the original Italian:

«TRAPPOLA» - «La 'trappola' sarebbe stata montata, secondo la sopra citata catena di stampa, per sollevare una ondata di solidarietà verso Berlusconi, nel momento nel quale si trova in difficoltà anche a causa di un altro scoop della stessa catena giornalistica sugli intrecci tra la Rai e Mediaset», continua il senatore a vita. «Da ambienti vicini a Palazzo Chigi, centro nevralgico di direzione dell'intelligence italiana, si fa notare che la non autenticità del video è testimoniata dal fatto che Osama Bin Laden in esso 'confessa' che Al Qaeda sarebbe stato l'autore dell'attentato dell'11 settembre alle due torri in New York, mentre tutti gli ambienti democratici d'America e d'Europa, con in prima linea quelli del centrosinistra italiano, sanno ormai bene che il disastroso attentato è stato pianificato e realizzato dalla Cia americana e dal Mossad con l'aiuto del mondo sionista per mettere sotto accusa i Paesi arabi e per indurre le potenze occidentali ad intervenire sia in Iraq sia in Afghanistan. Per questo - conclude Cossiga - nessuna parola di solidarietà è giunta a Silvio Berlusconi, che sarebbe l'ideatore della geniale falsificazione, né dal Quirinale, né da Palazzo Chigi né da esponenti del centrosinistra!».


Osama-Berlusconi? «Trappola giornalistica», Corrierre Della Sera, November 30, 2007 http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_novembre_30/osama_berlusconi_cossiga_27f4ccee-9f55-11dc-8807-0003ba99c53b.shtml

"Were US & Israel Behind the 9/11?" Gideon Polya, Media With Conscience, Dec. 6, 2007

"Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job" Paul Joseph Watson, December 4, 2007


SSPX Catholic bishop: 9-11 was inside job; Calif. priest responds to Minn. priest regarding priestly celibacy

Bishop Richard Williamson, seemingly the most outspoken and controversial bishop of the Society of St. Pius X, asserted in a recent talk that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were committed "to get the American public to accept the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq," according to a news item by Jack Kenny in the Nov. 15, 2007 issue of The Wanderer.

Bishop Williamson, whose talk was held Nov. 4, 2007 in Bedford, Mass., is quoted as saying:

"Without 9-11, it would have been impossible to attack in Afghanistan or Iraq. The forces inside the United States government and driving the United States government absolutely wanted to attack and destroy Iraq. The destruction wrought upon Iraq is unspeakable. And now the same forces want to do the same thing to Iran . . . They may well be plotting another 9-11."

The news item continues: "Heat from the burning fuel of the planes that flew into the twin towers of the World Trade Center could not have melted the 47 steel columns in each tower, causing them to collapse, he claimed. And a commercial airliner could not have penetrated six of the ten walls that were breached by 'whatever hit the Pentagon,' he said."

What did hit the Pentagon, according to Bishop Williamson?

"It was a missile that hit the Pentagon. It was a missile that could only have been fired by the American military."

Father Richard Perozich, of the San Diego Catholic diocese, sent me the following response to Father Jack Nordick's statements on priestly celibacy:

  • "Who kind of leadership in New Ulm has promoted this kind of thinking?

  • "1. Celibacy is a gift of complete dedication of self to image Christ in service and love of God's people.

  • "2. The grace of celibacy transforms the priest and his various types of love into service to God and His people.

  • "3. Priests are human and humans may fall in love in their lifetimes.

  • "4. If some priests have fallen to their passion instead of lifted by grace, they need to be raised again to their promise.

  • "5. This failure model from New Ulm sounds like a personal apologia of one seeking acceptance as the norm by all.

  • "6. Salvation is difficult for us who have received grace in sacraments; it is very difficult for those who have not.

  • "7. Embrace the grace, Father, and work out your salvation in fear and trembling like the rest of us.

  • "8. Repent, convert, and repair by fidelity to celibacy with the grace God has given you."

keskiviikko, 5. maaliskuu 2008


Al Qaeda and the "War on Terrorism"

One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to "fabricate an enemy". The "outside enemy" personified by Osama bin Laden is "threatening America".

Pre-emptive war directed against "Islamic terrorists" is required to defend the Homeland. Realities are turned upside down. America is under attack.

In the wake of 9/11, the creation of this "outside enemy" has served to obfuscate the real economic and strategic objectives behind the war in the Middle East and Central Asia. Waged on the grounds of self-defense, the pre-emptive war is upheld as a "just war" with a humanitarian mandate.

As anti-war sentiment grows and the political legitimacy the Bush Administration falters, doubts regarding the existence of this illusive "outside enemy" must be dispelled.

Counter-terrorism and war propaganda are intertwined. The propaganda apparatus feeds disinformation into the news chain. The terror warnings must appear to be "genuine". The objective is to present the terror groups as "enemies of America."

Ironically, Al Qaeda --the "outside enemy of America" as well as the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks-- is a creation of the CIA.

From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of the "Islamic brigades". Propaganda purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and "kill the evidence" on how this "outside enemy" was fabricated and transformed into "Enemy Number One".

The US intelligence apparatus has created it own terrorist organizations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself created. Meanwhile, a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program "to go after" these terrorist organizations has been put in place.

Portrayed in stylized fashion by the Western media, Osama bin Laden, supported by his various henchmen, constitutes America’s post-Cold war bogeyman, who "threatens Western democracy". The alleged threat of "Islamic terrorists", permeates the entire US national security doctrine. Its purpose is to justify wars of aggression in the Middle East, while establishing within America, the contours of the Homeland Security State.

Historical Background

What are the historical origins of Al Qaeda? Who is Osama bin Laden?

The alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorists attacks, Saudi-born Osama bin Laden, was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war, "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders".(Hugh Davies, "`Informers’ point the finger at bin Laden; Washington on alert for suicide bombers." The Daily Telegraph, London, 24 August 1998).

In 1979 the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA was launched in Afghanistan:

"With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI, who wanted to turn the Afghan Jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually, more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad." (Ahmed Rashid, "The Taliban: Exporting Extremism", Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999).

This project of the US intelligence apparatus was conducted with the active support of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), which was entrusted in channelling covert military aid to the Islamic brigades and financing, in liason with the CIA, the madrassahs and Mujahideen training camps.

U.S. government support to the Mujahideen was presented to world public opinion as a "necessary response" to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.

The CIA’s military-intelligence operation in Afghanistan, which consisted in creating the "Islamic brigades", was launched prior rather than in response to the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan. In fact, Washington’s intent was to deliberately trigger a civil war, which has lasted for more than 25 years.

The CIA’s role in laying the foundations of Al Qaeda is confirmed in an 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who at the time was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter:

Brzezinski: According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, [on] 24 December 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion, this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War? ( "The CIA’s Intervention in Afghanistan, Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser", Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998, published in English, Centre for Research on Globalisation, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html, 5 October 2001, italics added.)

Consistent with Brzezinski’s account, a "Militant Islamic Network" was created by the CIA.

The "Islamic Jihad" (or holy war against the Soviets) became an integral part of the CIA’s intelligence ploy. It was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia, with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:

"In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166 … [which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies — a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987 … as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who travelled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan’s ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There, the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels."(Steve Coll, The Washington Post, July 19, 1992.)

The Central Intelligence Agency using Pakistan’s ISI as a go-between played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam. The madrasahs were set up by Wahabi fundamentalists financed out of Saudi Arabia: "[I]t was the government of the United States who supported Pakistani dictator General Zia-ul Haq in creating thousands of religious schools, from which the germs of the Taliban emerged."(Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), "RAWA Statement on the Terrorist Attacks in the U.S.", Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), 
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RAW109A.html , 16 September 2001)

Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow. (Dilip Hiro, Fallout from the Afghan Jihad, Inter Press Services, 21 November 1995.)

Pakistan’s ISI Used as a "Go-Between"

CIA covert support to the "Islamic Jihad" operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI — i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. For these covert operations to be "successful", Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the "Jihad", which consisted not only in destabilising the secular (pro-Soviet) government in Afghanistan, but also destroying the Soviet Union.

In the words of the CIA’s Milton Beardman, "We didn’t train Arabs." Yet, according to Abdel Monam Saidali, of the Al-aram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, bin Laden and the "Afghan Arabs" had been imparted "with very sophisticated types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA". (National Public Radio, Weekend Sunday (NPR) with Eric Weiner and Ted Clark, 16 August 1998).

The CIA’s Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Osama bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. According to bin Laden (as quoted by Beardman): "Neither I, nor my brothers, saw evidence of American help." (National Public Radio, Weekend Sunday (NPR) with Eric Weiner and Ted Clark, transcript, 16 August 1998).

Motivated by nationalism and religious fervour, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in the war theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA.

With CIA backing and the funnelling of massive amounts of U.S. military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a "parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government". (Dipankar Banerjee, "Possible Connection of ISI With Drug Industry", India Abroad, 2 December 1994). The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers, estimated at 150,000. (Ibid).

Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General Zia Ul Haq:

"Relations between the CIA and the ISI had grown increasingly warm following [General] Zia’s ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military regime. … During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet Central Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984.

The CIA was more cautious than the Pakistanis. Both Pakistan and the United States took the line of deception on Afghanistan with a public posture of negotiating a settlement, while privately agreeing that military escalation was the best course." (Diego Cordovez and Selig Harrison, Out of Afghanistan: The Inside Story of the Soviet Withdrawal, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995. See also the review of Cordovez and Harrison in International Press Services, 22 August 1995).

The CIA sponsored Narcotics Trade

The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA’s covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin. (Alfred McCoy, Drug Fallout: the CIA’s Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive, 1 August 1997).

Researcher Alfred McCoy’s study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, "the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world’s top heroin producer, supplying 60 per cent of U.S. demand." (Ibid)

"CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests. … (Ibid)

Afghanistan is a strategic hub in Central Asia, bordering on China’s Western frontier and on the former Soviet Union. While it constitutes a land bridge for the oil and gas pipeline corridors linking the Caspian sea basin to the Arabian sea, it is also strategic for its opium production, which today, according to UN sources, supplies more than 90 % of the World’s heroin market, representing multi-billion dollar revenues for business syndicates, financial institutions, intelligence agencies and organized crime. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America’s "War on Terrorism, Global Research, 2005, Chapter XVI)

Protected by the CIA, a new surge in opium production unfolded in the post cold War era. Since the October 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan, opium production has increased 33 fold since the US led invasion. The annual proceeds of the Golden Crescent drug trade are estimated between 120 and 194 billion dollars (2006), representing more than one third of the worldwide annual turnover of the narcotics trade. (Michel Chossudovsky, Heroin is good for Your Health, Occupation Forces Support Afghan Drug Trade, Global Research, April 2007. see also Douglas Keh, Drug Money in a Changing World, Technical document No. 4, 1998),

From the Soviet-Afghan War to the "War on Terrorism"

Despite the demise of the Soviet Union, Pakistan’s extensive military-intelligence apparatus (the ISI) was not dismantled. In the wake of the Cold War, the CIA continued to support the Islamic brigades out of Pakistan. New undercover initiatives were set in motion in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Balkans and south East Asia. In the immediate wke of the Cold War, Pakistan’s ISI "served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia". (International Press Services, 22 August 1995).

Meanwhile, Islamic missionaries of the Wahabi sect from Saudi Arabia had established themselves in the Muslim republics, as well as within the Russian federation, encroaching upon the institutions of the secular State. Despite its anti-American ideology, Islamic fundamentalism was largely serving Washington’s strategic interests in the former Soviet Union, the Balkans and the Middle East.

Following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, the civil war in Afghanistan continued unabated. The Taliban were being supported by the Pakistani Deobandis and their political party, the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). In 1993, the JUI entered Pakistan’s government coalition of Prime Minister Benazzir Bhutto. Ties between the JUI, the Army and the ISI were established. In 1996, with the downfall of the Hezb-I-Islami Hektmatyar government in Kabul, the Taliban not only instated a hardline Islamic government, they also "handed control of training camps in Afghanistan over to JUI factions …". (Ahmed Rashid, "The Taliban: Exporting Extremism", Foreign Affairs, November - December, 1999, p. 22.)

The JUI, with the support of the Saudi Wahabi movement, played a key role in recruiting volunteers to fight in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union. (Ibid)

Jane Defence Weekly confirms, that "half of Taliban manpower and equipment originate[d] in Pakistan under the ISI". In fact, it would appear that following the Soviet withdrawal, both sides in the Afghan civil war continued to receive US covert support through Pakistan’s ISI. (Tim McGirk, "Kabul Learns to Live with its Bearded Conquerors", The Independent, London, 6 November 1996.)

Backed by Pakistan’s military intelligence, which in turn was controlled by the CIA, the Taliban Islamic State largely served US geopolitical interests. No doubt this explains why Washington had closed its eyes on the reign of terror imposed by the Taliban in 1996, including the blatant derogation of women’s rights, the closing down of schools for girls, the dismissal of women employees from government offices and the enforcement of "the Sharia laws of punishment". (K. Subrahmanyam, "Pakistan is Pursuing Asian Goals", India Abroad, 3 November 1995.)

The Golden Crescent drug trade was also being used to finance and equip the Bosnian Muslim Army (starting in the early 1990s) and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In fact, at the time of the September 11 attacks, CIA-sponsored Mujahideen mercenaries were fighting within the ranks of KLA-NLA terrorists in their assaults into Macedonia.

The War in Chechnya

In Chechnya, the renegade autonomous region of the Russian Federation, the main rebel leaders, Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab, were trained and indoctrinated in CIA-sponsored camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to Yossef Bodansky, director of the U.S. Congress’ Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, the war in Chechnya had been planned during a secret summit of HizbAllah International held in 1996 in Mogadishu, Somalia. (Levon Sevunts, "Who’s Calling The Shots? Chechen conflict finds Islamic roots in Afghanistan and Pakistan", The Gazette, Montreal, 26 October 1999.)

The summit was attended by none other than Osama bin Laden, as well as high-ranking Iranian and Pakistani intelligence officers. It’s obvious that the involvement of Pakistan’s ISI in Chechnya "goes far beyond supplying the Chechens with weapons and expertise: The ISI and its radical Islamic proxies are actually calling the shots in this war."(Ibid)

Russia’s main pipeline route transits through Chechnya and Dagestan. Despite Washington’s condemnation of "Islamic terrorism", the indirect beneficiaries of the wars in Chechnya are the Anglo-American oil conglomerates which are vying for complete control over oil resources and pipeline corridors out of the Caspian Sea basin.

The two main Chechen rebel armies (which at the time were led by the (late) Commander Shamil Basayev and Emir Khattab), estimated at 35,000 strong, were supported by Pakistan’s ISI, which also played a key role in organizing and training the rebel army:

"[In 1994] the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence arranged for Basayev and his trusted lieutenants to undergo intensive Islamic indoctrination and training in guerrilla warfare in the Khost province of Afghanistan at Amir Muawia camp, set up in the early 1980s by the CIA and ISI and run by famous Afghani warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In July 1994, upon graduating from Amir Muawia, Basayev was transferred to Markaz-i-Dawar camp in Pakistan to undergo training in advanced guerrilla tactics. In Pakistan, Basayev met the highest ranking Pakistani military and intelligence officers: Minister of Defence General Aftab Shahban Mirani, Minister of Interior General Naserullah Babar, and the head of the ISI branch in charge of supporting Islamic causes, General Javed Ashraf (all now retired). High-level connections soon proved very useful to Basayev." (Ibid)

Following his training and indoctrination stint, Basayev was assigned to lead the assault against Russian federal troops in the first Chechen war in 1995. His organization had also developed extensive links to criminal syndicates in Moscow as well as ties to Albanian organized crime and the KLA. In 1997-1998, according to Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) "Chechen warlords started buying up real estate in Kosovo … through several real estate firms registered as a cover in Yugoslavia." (Vitaly Romanov and Viktor Yadukha, "Chechen Front Moves To Kosovo", Segodnia, Moscow, 23 Feb 2000)

Dismantling Secular Institutions in the former Soviet Union

The enforcement of Islamic law in the largely secular Muslim societies of the former Soviet Union has served America’s strategic interests in the region. Previously, a strong secular tradition based on a rejection of Islamic law prevailed throughout the Central Asian republics and the Caucasus, including Chechnya and Dagestan (which are part of the Russian Federation).

The 1994-1996 Chechen war, instigated by the main rebel movements against Moscow, has served to undermine secular state institutions. A parallel system of local government, controlled by the Islamic militia, was implanted in many localities in Chechnya. In some of the small towns and villages, Islamic Sharia courts were established under a reign of political terror.

Financial aid from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States to the rebel armies was conditional upon the installation of the Sharia courts, despite strong opposition of the civilian population. The Principal Judge and Ameer of the Sharia courts in Chechnya was Sheikh Abu Umar, who "came to Chechnya in 1995 and joined the ranks of the Mujahideen there under the leadership of Ibn-ul-Khattab. … He set about teaching Islam with the correct Aqeedah to the Chechen Mujahideen, many of whom held incorrect and distorted beliefs about Islam." (Global Muslim News, http://www.islam.org.au/articles/21/news.htm, December 1997).

Meanwhile, state institutions of the Russian Federation in Chechnya were crumbling under the brunt of the IMF-sponsored austerity measures imposed under the Presidency of Boris Yeltsin. In contrast, the Sharia courts, financed and equipped out of Saudi Arabia, were gradually displacing existing State institutions of the Russian Federation and the Chechnya autonomous region.

The Wahabi movement from Saudi Arabia was not only attempting to overrun civilian State institutions in Dagestan and Chechnya, it was also seeking to displace the traditional Sufi Muslim leaders. In fact, the resistance to the Islamic rebels in Dagestan was based on the alliance of the (secular) local governments with the Sufi sheiks:

"These [Wahabi] groups consist of a very tiny but well-financed and well-armed minority. They propose with these attacks the creation of terror in the hearts of the masses. … By creating anarchy and lawlessness, these groups can enforce their own harsh, intolerant brand of Islam. … Such groups do not represent the common view of Islam, held by the vast majority of Muslims and Islamic scholars, for whom Islam exemplifies the paragon of civilization and perfected morality. They represent what is nothing less than a movement to anarchy under an Islamic label. … Their intention is not so much to create an Islamic state, but to create a state of confusion in which they are able to thrive.34 Mateen Siddiqui, "Differentiating Islam from Militant ‘Islamists’" San Francisco Chronicle, 21 September 1999

Promoting Secessionist Movements in India

In parallel with its covert operations in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, Pakistan’s ISI has provided, since the 1980s, support to several secessionist Islamic insurgencies in India’s Kashmir.

Although officially condemned by Washington, these covert ISI operations were undertaken with the tacit approval of the U.S. government. Coinciding with the 1989 Geneva Peace Agreement and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the ISI was instrumental in the creation of the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM). (See K. Subrahmanyam, "Pakistan is Pursuing Asian Goals", India Abroad, 3 November 19950.

Im the immediate wake of 9/11, the December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament — which contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war — were conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba, (Army of the Pure) and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Army of Mohammed), both of which are covertly supported by Pakistan’s ISI. (Council on Foreign Relations, "Terrorism: Questions and Answers, Harakat ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad", http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html, Washington 2002.Note: This report is no longer available on the CFR website.)

The timely attack on the Indian Parliament, followed by the ethnic riots in Gujarat in early 2002, were the culmination of a process initiated in the 1980s, financed by drug money and abetted by Pakistan’s military intelligence.

Needless to say, these ISI-supported terrorist attacks serve the geopolitical interests of the U.S. The powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which plays a behind-the-scenes role in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy, confirms that the Lashkar and Jaish rebel groups are supported by the ISI:

Through its Inter-Service Intelligence Agency (ISI), Pakistan has provided funding, arms, training facilities, and aid in crossing borders to Lashkar and Jaish. This assistance — an attempt to replicate in Kashmir the international Islamist brigade’s "holy war" against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan — helped introduce radical Islam into the long-standing conflict over the fate of Kashmir. …

Have these groups received funding from sources other than the Pakistani government?

Yes. Members of the Pakistani and Kashmiri communities in England send millions of dollars a year, and Wahabi sympathizers in the Persian Gulf also provide support.

Do Islamist terrorists in Kashmir have ties to Al-Qaeda?

Yes. In 1998, the leader of Harakat, Farooq Kashmiri Khalil, signed Osama bin Laden’s declaration calling for attacks on Americans, including civilians, and their allies. Bin Laden is also suspected of funding Jaish, according to U.S. and Indian officials. And Maulana Massoud Azhar, who founded Jaish, travelled to Afghanistan several times to meet bin Laden.

Where were these Islamist militants trained?

Many were given ideological training in the same madrasahs, or Muslim seminaries, that taught the Taliban and foreign fighters in Afghanistan. They received military training at camps in Afghanistan or in villages in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. Extremist groups have recently opened several new madrasas in Azad Kashmir.

Council on Foreign Relations, "Terrorism: Questions and Answers, Harakat ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad",


Washington 2002. This text was removed from the CFR website in 2006)

What the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) fails to acknowledge are the links between the ISI and the CIA and the fact that the "international Islamic brigades" were a creation of the CIA.

U.S.-Sponsored Insurgencies in China

Also of significance in understanding America’s "War on Terrorism" is the existence of ISI-supported Islamic insurgencies on China’s Western border with Afghanistan and Pakistan. In fact, several of the Islamic movements in the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union are integrated with the Turkestan and Uigur movements in China’s Xinjiang-Uigur autonomous region.

These separatist groups — which include the East Turkestan Terrorist Force, the Islamic Reformist Party, the East Turkestan National Unity Alliance, the Uigur Liberation Organization and the Central Asian Uigur Jihad Party — have all received support and training from Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. (According to official Chinese sources quoted in UPI, 20 November 2001.). The declared objective of these Chinese-based Islamic insurgencies is the "establishment of an Islamic caliphate in the region". (Defence and Security, May 30, 2001).

The caliphate would integrate Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan (West Turkestan) and the Uigur autonomous region of China (East Turkestan) into a single political entity.

The "caliphate project" encroaches upon Chinese territorial sovereignty. Supported by various Wahabi "foundations" from the Gulf States, secessionism on China’s Western frontier is, once again, consistent with U.S. strategic interests in Central Asia. Meanwhile, a powerful U.S.-based lobby is channelling support to separatist forces in Tibet.

By tacitly promoting the secession of the Xinjiang-Uigur region (using Pakistan’s ISI as a "go-between"), Washington is attempting to trigger a broader process of political destabilization and fracturing of the People’s Republic of China. In addition to these various covert operations, the U.S. has established military bases in Afghanistan and in several of the former Soviet republics, directly on China’s Western border.

The militarization of the South China Sea and of the Taiwan Straits is also an integral part of this strategy.


Throughout the 1990s, the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was used by the CIA as a go-between -- to channel weapons and Mujahideen mercenaries to the Bosnian Muslim Army in the civil war in Yugoslavia. According to a report of the London based International Media Corporation:

"Reliable sources report that the United States is now [1994] actively participating in the arming and training of the Muslim forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina in direct contravention of the United Nations accords. US agencies have been providing weapons made in ... China (PRC), North Korea (DPRK) and Iran. The sources indicated that ... Iran, with the knowledge and agreement of the US Government, supplied the Bosnian forces with a large number of multiple rocket launchers and a large quantity of ammunition. These included 107mm and 122mm rockets from the PRC, and VBR-230 multiple rocket launchers ... made in Iran. ... It was [also] reported that 400 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) arrived in Bosnia with a large supply of arms and ammunition. It was alleged that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had full knowledge of the operation and that the CIA believed that some of the 400 had been detached for future terrorist operations in Western Europe.

The US Administration has not restricted its involvement to the clandestine contravention of the UN arms embargo on the region ... It [also] committed three high-ranking delegations over the past two years [prior to 1994] in failed attempts to bring the Yugoslav Government into line with US policy. Yugoslavia is the only state in the region to have failed to acquiesce to US pressure." (International Media Corporation, Defence and Strategy Policy, U.S. Commits Forces, Weapons to Bosnia, London, 31 October 1994)

"From the Horse's Mouth"

Ironically, the US Administration's undercover military-intelligence operations in Bosnia, which consisted in promoting the formation of "Islamic brigades", have been fully documented by the Republican Party. A lengthy Congressional report by the Senate Republican Party Committee (RPC) published in 1997, largely confirms the International Media Corporation report quoted above. The RPC Congressional report accuses the Clinton administration of having "helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base" leading to the recruitment through the so-called "Militant Islamic Network," of thousands of Mujahideen from the Muslim world:

"Perhaps most threatening to the SFOR mission - and more importantly, to the safety of the American personnel serving in Bosnia - is the unwillingness of the Clinton Administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American people about its complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo. That policy, personally approved by Bill Clinton in April 1994 at the urging of CIA Director-designate (and then-NSC chief) Anthony Lake and the U.S. ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith, has, according to the Los Angeles Times (citing classified intelligence community sources), "played a central role in the dramatic increase in Iranian influence in Bosnia.


Along with the weapons, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and VEVAK intelligence operatives entered Bosnia in large numbers, along with thousands of mujahedin ("holy warriors") from across the Muslim world. Also engaged in the effort were several other Muslim countries (including Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey) and a number of radical Muslim organizations. For example, the role of one Sudan-based "humanitarian organization," called the Third World Relief Agency, has been well documented. The Clinton Administration's "hands-on" involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials... the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization ... has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. ... TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi émigré believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. [Washington Post, 9/22/96]

(Congressional Press Release, Republican Party Committee (RPC), U.S. Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, Washington DC, 16 January 1997, available on the website of the Centre of Research on Globalisation (CRG) at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html. The original document is on the website of the U.S. Senate Republican Party Committee (Senator Larry Craig), at http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm;  see also Washington Post, 22 September 1999, Emphasis added) 

Complicity of the Clinton Administration

In other words, the Republican Party Committee report confirms unequivocally the complicity of the Clinton Administration with several Islamic fundamentalist organisations including Al Qaeda.

The Republicans wanted at the time to undermine the Clinton Administration. However, at a time when the entire country had its eyes riveted on the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Republicans no doubt chose not to trigger an untimely "Iran-Bosniagate" affair, which might have unduly diverted public attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. The Republicans wanted to impeach Bill Clinton "for having lied to the American People" regarding his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. On the more substantive "foreign policy lies" regarding drug running and covert operations in the Balkans, Democrats and Republicans agreed in unison, no doubt pressured by the Pentagon and the CIA not to "spill the beans".

From Bosnia to Kosovo

The "Bosnian pattern" described in the 1997 Congressional RPC report was replicated in Kosovo. With the complicity of NATO and the US State Department, Mujahideen mercenaries from the Middle East and Central Asia were recruited to fight in the ranks of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1998-99, largely supporting NATO's war effort.

Confirmed by British military sources, the task of arming and training of the KLA had been entrusted in 1998 to the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Britain's Secret Intelligence Services MI6, together with "former and serving members of 22 SAS [Britain's 22nd Special Air Services Regiment], as well as three British and American private security companies". (The Scotsman, Edinburgh, 29 August 1999).

The US DIA approached MI6 to arrange a training programme for the KLA, said a senior British military source. `MI6 then sub-contracted the operation to two British security companies, who in turn approached a number of former members of the (22 SAS) regiment. Lists were then drawn up of weapons and equipment needed by the KLA.' While these covert operations were continuing, serving members of 22 SAS Regiment, mostly from the unit's D Squadron, were first deployed in Kosovo before the beginning of the bombing campaign in March. (Truth in Media, "Kosovo in Crisis", Phoenix, Arizona, http://www.truthinmedia.org/, 2 April 1999).

While British SAS Special Forces in bases in Northern Albania were training the KLA, military instructors from Turkey and Afghanistan financed by the "Islamic jihad" were collaborating in training the KLA in guerilla and diversion tactics.:(The Sunday Times, London, 29 November 1998).

"Bin Laden had visited Albania himself. He was one of several fundamentalist groups that had sent units to fight in Kosovo, ... Bin Laden is believed to have established an operation in Albania in 1994 ... Albanian sources say Sali Berisha, who was then president, had links with some groups that later proved to be extreme fundamentalists." (Ibid)

Congressional Testimonies on KLA-Al Qaeda links

In the mid-1990s, the CIA and Germany's Secret Service, the BND, joined hands in providing covert support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In turn, the latter was receiving support from Al Qaeda.

According to Frank Ciluffo of the Globalized Organised Crime Program, in a December 2000 testimony to the House of Representatives Judicial Committee:

"What was largely hidden from public view was the fact that the KLA raise part of their funds from the sale of narcotics. Albania and Kosovo lie at the heart of the "Balkan Route" that links the "Golden Crescent" of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the drug markets of Europe. This route is worth an estimated $400 billion a year and handles 80 percent of heroin destined for Europe." (U.S. Congress, Testimony of Frank J. Cilluffo, Deputy Director of the Global Organized Crime Program, to the House Judiciary Committee, Washington DC, 13 December 2000).

According to Ralf Mutschke of Interpol's Criminal Intelligence division also in a testimony to the House Judicial Committee:

"The U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden" . Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Jihad organization and also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict."(U.S. Congress, Testimony of Ralf Mutschke of Interpol’s Criminal Intelligence Division, to the House Judicial Committee, Washington DC, 13 December 2000.)

Madeleine Albright Covets the KLA

These KLA links to international terrorism and organised crime documented by the US Congress were totally ignored by the Clinton Administration. In fact, in the months preceding the bombing of Yugoslavia, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was busy building a "political legitimacy" for the KLA. The paramilitary army had --from one day to the next-- been elevated to the status of a bona fide "democratic" force in Kosovo. In turn, Madeleine Albright has forced the pace of international diplomacy: the KLA had been spearheaded into playing a central role in the failed "peace negotiations" at Rambouiillet in early 1999.

The Senate and the House tacitly endorse State Terrorism

While the various Congressional reports confirmed that the US government had been working hand in glove with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, this did not prevent the Clinton and later the Bush Administration from arming and equipping the KLA. The Congressional documents also confirm that members of the Senate and the House knew the relationship of the Administration to international terrorism. To quote the statement of Rep. John Kasich of the House Armed Services Committee: "We connected ourselves [in 1998-99] with the KLA, which was the staging point for bin Laden..." (U.S. Congress, Transcripts of the House Armed Services Committee, Washington, DC, 5 October 1999,)

In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, Republicans and Democrats in unison have given their full support to the President to "wage war on Osama".

In 1999, Senator Jo Lieberman had stated authoritatively that "Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values." In the hours following the October 7 missile attacks on Afghanistan, the same Jo Lieberman called for punitive air strikes against Iraq: "We're in a war against terrorism... We can't stop with bin Laden and the Taliban." Yet Senator Jo Lieberman, as member of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate had access to all the Congressional documents pertaining to "KLA-Osama" links. In making this statement, he was fully aware that that agencies of the US government as well as NATO were supporting international terrorism.

"The Islamic Militant Network" and NATO join hands in Macedonia

In the wake of the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, the terrorist activities of the KLA were extended into Southern Serbia and Macedonia. Meanwhile, the KLA --renamed the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC)-- was elevated to United Nations status, implying the granting of "legitimate" sources of funding through United Nations as well as through bilateral channels, including direct US military aid.

And barely two months after the official inauguration of the KPC under UN auspices (September 1999), KPC-KLA commanders - using UN resources and equipment - were already preparing the assaults into Macedonia, as a logical follow-up to their terrorist activities in Kosovo. According to the Skopje daily Dnevnik, the KPC had established a "sixth operation zone" in Southern Serbia and Macedonia:

"Sources, who insist on anonymity, claim that the headquarters of the Kosovo protection brigades [i.e. linked to the UN sponsored KPC] have [March 2000] already been formed in Tetovo, Gostivar and Skopje. They are being prepared in Debar and Struga [on the border with Albania] as well, and their members have defined codes." (Macedonian Information Centre Newsletter, Skopje, 21 March 2000, published by BBC Summary of World Broadcast, 24 March 2000.)

According to the BBC, "Western special forces were still training the guerrillas" meaning that they were assisting the KLA in opening up "a sixth operation zone" in Southern Serbia and Macedonia. (BBC, 29 January 2001.)

Among the foreign mercenaries fighting in Macedonia in 2001 in the ranks of self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA) were Mujahideen from the Middle East and the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Also within the KLA's proxy force in Macedonia were senior US military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon as well as "soldiers of fortune" from Britain, Holland and Germany. Some of these Western mercenaries had previously fought with the KLA and the Bosnian Muslim Army. (Scotland on Sunday, 15 June 2001. See also UPI, 9 July 2001. For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005, Chapter III ).

Extensively documented by the Macedonian press and statements of the Macedonian authorities, the US government and the "Islamic Militant Network" were working hand in glove in supporting and financing the self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA), involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia. The NLA is a proxy of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In turn the KLA and the UN sponsored Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) are identical institutions with the same commanders and military personnel. KPC Commanders on UN salaries are fighting in the NLA together with the Mujahideen.

In a bitter twist, while supported and financed by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, the KLA-NLA was also being supported by NATO and the United Nations mission to Kosovo (UNMIK). In fact, the "Islamic Militant Network" still constitutes an integral part of Washington's covert military-intelligence operations in Macedonia and Southern Serbia.

The KLA-NLA terrorists were funded from US military aid, the United Nations peace-keeping budget as well as by several Islamic organisations including Al Qaeda. Drug money was also used to finance the terrorists with the complicity of the US government. The recruitment of Mujahideen to fight in the ranks of the NLA in Macedonia was implemented through various Islamic groups.

US military advisers mingle with Mujahideen within the same paramilitary force, Western mercenaries from NATO countries fight alongside Mujahideen recruited in the Middle East and Central Asia. And the US media calls this a "blowback" where so-called "intelligence assets" have gone against their sponsors!

But this did not happen during the Cold war! It happened in Macedonia in 2000-2001. Confirmed by numerous press reports, eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence as well as official statements by the Macedonian Prime Minister, who accused the Western military alliance of abetting the terrorists, the US had been supporting the Islamic brigades barely a few months prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Washington’s Hidden Agenda

U.S. foreign policy is not geared towards curbing the tide of Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The significant development of "radical Islam", in the wake of the Cold War in the former Soviet Union and the Middle East is consistent with Washington’s hidden agenda. The latter consists in sustaining rather than combating international terrorism, with a view to destabilizing national societies and preventing the articulation of genuine secular social movements directed against the American Empire.

Washington continues to support — through CIA covert operations — the development of Islamic fundamentalism, throughout the Middle East, in the former Soviet Union as well in China and India.

Throughout the developing world, the growth of sectarian, fundamentalist and other such organizations tends to serve U.S. interests. These various organizations and armed insurgents have been developed, particularly in countries where state institutions have collapsed under the brunt of the IMF-sponsored economic reforms.

These fundamentalist organizations contribute by destroying and displacing secular institutions.

Islamic fundamentalism creates social and ethnic divisions. It undermines the capacity of people to organize against the American Empire. These organizations or movements, such as the Taliban, often foment "opposition to Uncle Sam" in a way which does not constitute any real threat to America’s broader geopolitical and economic interests.

Erasing the History of Al Qaeda

Since September 2001, this history of Al Qaeda has largely been erased. The links of successive US administrations to the "Islamic terror network" is rarely mentioned.

A major war in the Middle East and Central Asia, supposedly "against international terrorism" was launched in October 2001 by a government which had been harboring international terrorism as part of its foreign policy agenda. In other words, the main justification for waging war on Afghanistan and Iraq has been totally fabricated. The American people have been deliberately and consciously misled by their government.

This decision to mislead the American people was taken on September 11, 2001 barely a few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre. Without supporting evidence, Osama had already been tagged as the "prime suspect". Two days later on Thursday the 13th of September — while the FBI investigation had barely commenced — President Bush pledged to "lead the world to victory".

While the CIA tacitly acknowledges that Al Qaeda was an "intelligence asset" during the Cold War, the relationship is said to "go way back" to a bygone era.

Most post-September 11 news reports tend to consider that these Al Qaeda -CIA links belong to the "bygone era" of the Soviet-Afghan war. They are invariably viewed as irrelevant to an understanding of 9/11 and the "Global War on Terrorism". Yet barely a few months before 9/11, there was evidence of active collaboration between members of the US military and Al Qaeda operatives in the civil war in Macedonia.

Lost in the barrage of recent history, the role of the CIA, in supporting and developing international terrorist organizations during the Cold War and its aftermath, is casually ignored or downplayed by the Western media.

A blatant example of post-9/11 media distortion is the "blowback" thesis: "Intelligence assets" are said to "have gone against their sponsors; what we’ve created blows back in our face".1 In a display of twisted logic, the U.S. administration and the CIA are portrayed as the ill-fated victims:

The sophisticated methods taught to the Mujahideen, and the thousands of tons of arms supplied to them by the U.S. — and Britain — are now tormenting the West in the phenomenon known as "blowback", whereby a policy strategy rebounds on its own devisers.(The Guardian, London, 15 September 2001)

The U.S. media, nonetheless, concedes that "the Taliban’s coming to power [in 1996] is partly the outcome of the U.S. support of the Mujahideen — the radical Islamic group — in the 1980s in the war against the Soviet Union". 3 But it also readily dismisses its own factual statements and concludes, in chorus, that the CIA had been tricked by a deceitful Osama. It’s like "a son going against his father". 

The Post 9/11 "War on Terrorism"

The "blowback" thesis is a fabrication.

The CIA never severed its ties to the "Islamic Militant Network". There is ample evidence that Al Qaeda remains a US sponsored intelligence asset.

Al Qaeda is presented as the architect of 9/11 without ever mentioning its historical links to the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI.

While Al Qaeda remains firmly under the control of the US intelligence apparatus, the US administration has repeatedly intimated that this "outside enemy" will strike again, that a "second 9/11’ will occur somewhere in America or in the western World:

[there are] "indications that [the] near-term attacks ... will either rival or exceed the [9/11] attacks…

And it's pretty clear that the nation's capital and New York city would be on any list..." (Tom Ridge, Christmas 2003)

"You ask, 'Is it serious?' Yes, you bet your life. People don't do that unless it's a serious situation." (Donald Rumsfeld, Christmas 2003)

"Credible reporting indicates that Al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process... This is sobering information about those who wish to do us harm... But every day we strengthen the security of our nation." (George W. Bush, July 2004)

"The enemy that struck on 9/11 is fractured and weakened, yet still lethal, still determined to hit us again" (Dick Cheney, July 2006)

"Another [9/11] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity to retaliate against some known targets" (Pentagon official, quoted in the Washington Post, 23 April 2006)

War Propaganda

A terrorist attack on American soil of the size and nature of September 11, would lead --according to former US Central Command (USCENTCOM) Commander, General Tommy Franks, who led the invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- to the demise of Constitutional government. In a December 2003 interview, which was barely mentioned in the US media, General Franks had actually outlined a scenario which would result in the suspension of the Constitution and the installation of military rule in America:

"[A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. (Cigar Aficionado, December 2003)

Franks was alluding to a so-called "Pearl Harbor type event" which would be used to galvanize US public opinion in support of a military government and police state.

The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" was presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis, social turmoil and public indignation would facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures.

It is important to understand that General Franks was not giving a personal opinion on this issue. His statement is consistent with the dominant viewpoint both in the Pentagon and the Homeland Security department as to how events might unfold in the case of a national emergency.

"Massive Casualty Producing Events"

The "massive casualty producing event" is a integral part of military doctrine. The destruction and loss of life resulting from a terrorist attack serve to create a wave of public indignation. They create conditions of collective fear and intimidation, which facilitate the derogation of civil liberties and the introduction of police state measures.

The September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were used to galvanize public support for the invasion of Afghanistan, which took place barely four weeks later. Without supporting evidence, Al Qaeda, which was allegedly supported by the Taliban government, was held responsible for the 911 attacks.

The planning of a major theater war had been ongoing well before 9/11. Whereas the US military was already in an "advanced state of readiness", well at in advance of the 9/11 attacks, the decision to go to war with Afghanistan was taken on the evening of September 11 and was formally announced the following morning. Meanwhile, NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty and declared war on Afghanistan on behalf of all signatory member states of the Atlantic Alliance. NATO’s declaration of war based on the principle of "self-defense" was taken within 24 hours of the September 11 attacks.

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty was first invoked on September 12, 2001. America’s European Allies plus Canada offered their support in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. NATO embraced the US sponsored "Global War on Terrorism". Fourteen NATO member states sent troops to Afghanistan. (See NATO Review, Summer 2006, http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2006/issue2/english/summaries.html )

Operation Northwoods

The 9/11 "massive casualty producing event" played a crucial role in the process of military planning. It provided, in the eyes of public opinion, a pretext to go to war.

The triggering of "war pretext incidents" is part of the Pentagon’s assumptions. In fact it is an integral part of US military history.

In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled "Operation Northwoods, to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba: 

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." (See the declassified Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba", See Operation Northwoods at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html ).

Terror Warnings and Terror Events

To be "effective" the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated "warnings" of future attacks, it also requires "real" terrorist occurrences or "incidents", which provide credibility to the Administration’s war plans. Propaganda endorses the need to implement "emergency measures" as well as carry out retaliatory military actions.

Both the terror warnings and the terror events have served as a pretext to justify far-reaching military decisions.

Following the July 2005 London bombings, Vice President Dick Cheney was reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". Implied in the contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11.

This "contingency plan" used the pretext of a "Second 9/11", which had not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran, while pressure was also exerted on Tehran in relation to its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program.

What is diabolical in this decision of the US Vice President is that the justification presented by Cheney to wage war on Iran rested on Iran's alleged involvement in a hypothetical terrorist attack on America, which had not yet occurred: 

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Are we to understand that US, British and Israeli military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Syria and Iran?

Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" did not in the least focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan was predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings could immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the alleged support of the Taliban government to the 9/11 terrorists.

It is worth noting that one does not plan a war in three weeks: the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:

"At a deeper level, it implies that "9/11-type terrorist attacks" are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.... (Michael Keefer, Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: Understanding the Planned Assault on Iran, Global Research, February 10, 2006)

Since 2001, Vice President Cheney has reiterated his warning of a second 9/11 on several occasions

"The enemy that struck on 9/11 is fractured and weakened, yet still lethal, still determined to hit us again" (Waterloo Courier, Iowa, 19 July 2006, italics added).

"Justification and Opportunity to Retaliate against some known targets"

In April 2006, (former) Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld launched a far-reaching military plan to fight terrorism around the World, with a view to retaliating in the case of a second major terrorist attack on America.

"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has approved the military's most ambitious plan yet to fight terrorism around the world and retaliate more rapidly and decisively in the case of another major terrorist attack on the United States, according to defense officials.

The long-awaited campaign plan for the global war on terrorism, as well as two subordinate plans also approved within the past month by Rumsfeld, are considered the Pentagon's highest priority, according to officials familiar with the three documents who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about them publicly.

Details of the plans are secret, but in general they envision a significantly expanded role for the military -- and, in particular, a growing force of elite Special Operations troops -- in continuous operations to combat terrorism outside of war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Developed over about three years by the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in Tampa, the plans reflect a beefing up of the Pentagon's involvement in domains traditionally handled by the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department. (Washington Post, 23 April 2006)

This plan is predicated on the possibility of a Second 911 and the need to retaliate if and when the US is attacked:

"A third plan sets out how the military can both disrupt and respond to another major terrorist strike on the United States. It includes lengthy annexes that offer a menu of options for the military to retaliate quickly against specific terrorist groups, individuals or state sponsors depending on who is believed to be behind an attack. Another attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets, according to current and former defense officials familiar with the plan.

This plan details "what terrorists or bad guys we would hit if the gloves came off. The gloves are not off," said one official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject." (italics added, Washington Post, 23 April 2006)

The presumption of this military document, is that a Second 911 attack "which is lacking today" would usefully create both a "justification and an opportunity" to wage war on "some known targets [Iran and Syria]".

Realities are twisted upside down. The disinformation campaign has gone into full gear. The British and US media are increasingly pointing towards "preemptive war" as an act of "self defense" against Al Qaeda and the State sponsors of terrorism, who are allegedly preparing a Second 911. The underlying objective, through fear and intimidation, is ultimately to build public acceptance for the next stage of the Middle East "war on terrorism" which is directed against Syria and Iran.

Concluding Remarks

The threat of an Al Qaeda "Attack on America" is being used profusely by the Bush administration and its indefectible British ally to galvanize public opinion in support of a global military agenda.

Known and documented, the "Islamic terror network" is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus. There is firm evidence that several of the terrorist "mass casualty events" which have resulted in civilian casualties were triggered by the military and/or intelligence services. Similarly, corroborated by evidence, several of the terror alerts were based on fake intelligence as revealed in the London 2006 foiled "liquid bomb attack", where the alleged hijackers had not purchased airline tickets and several did not have passports to board the aircraft.

The "war on terrorism" is bogus. The 911 narrative as conveyed by the 911 Commission report is fabricated. The Bush administration is involved in acts of cover-up and complicity at the highest levels of government.

Revealing the lies behind 911 would serve to undermine the legitimacy of the "war on terrorism".

Revealing the lies behind 911 should be part of a consistent antiwar movement.

Without 911, the war criminals in high office do not have a leg to stand on. The entire national security construct collapses like a deck of cards. 


keskiviikko, 13. helmikuu 2008



Many Americans are content with the 9-11 commission report, but the two chairmen of the commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, are not.
Neither was commission member Max Cleland, a U.S. senator who resigned from the 9-11 commission, telling the Boston Globe on Nov. 13, 2003, "This investigation is now compromised." Even former FBI Director Louis Freeh wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 17, 2005, that there are inaccuracies in the commission's report and "questions that need answers."
Both Kean and Hamilton have twice stated publicly, once in their 2006 book, "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9-11 Commission," and again in the Jan. 2, 2008, New York Times, that there are inaccuracies in their report and unanswered — or mis-answered — questions.
On the second day of this new year, Kean and Hamilton accused the CIA of obstructing their investigation: "What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one of the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction."
(...) Kean and Hamilton wrote that they were unable to obtain "access to star witnesses in custody who were the only possible source for inside information about the 9-11 plot."
The only information the commission was permitted to have about what was learned from interrogations of alleged plot ringleaders, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, came from "third-hand" sources. The commission was not permitted to question the alleged plotters in custody or even to meet with those who interrogated the alleged plotters. Consequently, write Kean and Hamilton, "We had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information" that was fed to them by third party hands. "How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was telling us the truth?"
The fact that videotapes of the interrogations existed was kept secret from the 9-11 commission.
The videotapes have since been destroyed.
The destruction of the videos has become an issue because of White House involvement in the decision to destroy them and because the videos are believed to have been destroyed because they reveal methods of torture that the Bush administration denies using.
According to President Bush, the United States does not practice torture even though he and his Department of Justice (sic) assert the right to torture.
Is the torture issue a red herring? The 9-11 commission was not tasked with investigating interrogation methods or detainee treatment. The commission was tasked with investigating al-Qaida's participation in the 9-11 attack and determining the perpetuators of the terrorist event. There was no reason to withhold from the commission video evidence of confessions implicating al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.
Was the video evidence withheld from the 9-11 commission because the alleged participants in the plot did not confess, did not implicate al-Qaida and did not implicate bin Laden? Does anyone seriously believe that evidence of confession would not have been revealed — evidence that could have foreclosed what has become a massive industry of 9-11 truth-seekers involving large numbers of highly credible persons?
There is no reason for the Bush administration to fear the torture issue.
The Justice Department's memos have legalized the practice, and Congress has passed legislation, signed by President Bush, giving retroactive protection to U.S. interrogators who tortured detainees.

The Military Commissions Act passed in September 2006 and signed by Bush in October 2006 strips detainees of protections provided by the Geneva Conventions: "No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights."
Other provisions of the act strip detainees of speedy trials and of protection against torture and self-incrimination. The law has a provision that retroactively protects torturers against prosecution for war crimes.
Did the Bush administration cleverly take advantage of the torture claims in order to spin the destruction of the CIA videotapes as a "torture story"? It is much more likely that the tapes were destroyed because they reveal the absence of confession to the plot.
As Kean and Hamilton ask, without evidence how do we know the truth? All we have is the word of the administration that told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that, while sitting on a National Intelligence Estimate report that concluded that Iran had terminated its weapons program in 2003, told us that Iran had an ongoing nuclear weapons program and was close to having a nuclear weapon.
What about the bin Laden videotape in which he takes credit for the 9-11 attack? Every indication is that the tape is a fake. The bin Laden in the Nov. 9, 2001, "confession video" looks nothing like the bin Laden in the last confirmed video of December 2001.
Recently, the Italian newspaper, Corriere Della Sera, reported that the former president of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, said that Italian intelligence had concluded that the bin Laden confession video was a fake.
William Arkin in the online Washington Post on Feb. 1, 1999, described a voice-morphing technology developed at the government's Los Alamos laboratory. Arkin reported that digital morphing, including appearance, "has come of age, available for use in psychological operations."
Investigative reporter Kristina Borjesson reminds us that "six days after 9-11, CNN reported that bin Laden had sent a statement to Al Jazeera denying that he had been involved." She also reminds us that the FBI says it has no hard evidence that bin Laden was responsible for 9-11.
The FBI wants Osama for the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, not for 9-11. Borjesson also reports that in the "confession video" bin Laden is revealed writing with his right hand, but is known to be left-handed.
If the bin Laden "confession video" is indeed a fake, as it appears to be, why run the risk of creating such a video if the CIA has on videotape the confessions of the alleged al-Qaida participants in the 9-11 plot? Why destroy such evidence, especially when torture has been given a green light by the Department of Justice and U.S. Congress?
(Paul Craig Roberts, nationally syndicated columnist, Ph.D.)

maanantai, 11. helmikuu 2008

# International Commission of Inquiry: Bush administration committed war crimes and crimes against humanity

VERDICT and Findings of Fact
(September 13, 2006)
(Bush Crimes Commission
New York, NY 10013)

With this international commission we are looking at the crimes against humanity, which we
have been experiencing for some years, ever since the Bush administration came into office, but
whose antecedents really go back far into American history. It is a history of a very aggressive foreign policy, a history which starts with the extermination of the Indians driving them out of this continent, killing them, which proceeds with the invasion of Mexico, and goes on to send troops into the Caribbean and then into the Philippines. And we've seen in this post-World War II America, what was called by Henry Luce, the "American Century," the military dominance of the United States in the world.
The problem is that it is has not been moral dominance. The military dominance has gone along
with an immorality, which in these last years especially, has now reached the point of crime,
crimes against humanity, a phrase which came into general understanding after World War II
when the Nuremberg trials talked about the Nazis and their crimes against humanity. And it's a
shame that we are at this point in American history where the charge that was made against the
Nazis is now a charge that people all over the world, and now more and more people in the
United States, are beginning to level against this administration.
Here is an administration that has taken this country into two wars in five years, ruthlessly sending troops, first into Afghanistan and then into Iraq, under the guise of a war on terrorism, but in fact waging war, carrying out acts of terrorism, against the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush Administration has been reserving to itself the right to unilaterally act whenever it felt obliged to act, presumably in the interests of democracy and liberty, but actually in the interests of business, big business, the oil business in this instance.
I remember during the Vietnam War, there was an artist who did a poster, which was distributed
by the thousands. The poster had simple words on it. It said, "War is good for business. Invest
your son." That's the situation we're in now. Our sons, daughters are being invested for business
purposes. People all over the world know this, and now the American people recognize the immorality of what we are doing.
The destruction of life abroad is accompanied by the destruction of our liberties at home. Whenever the government was engaged in war, in near war, or in a foreign policy crisis, then it has
used this as an excuse to say to the nation: "The First Amendment doesn't count anymore. We
are in danger." Precisely at that time is when people most need their freedom of speech, when
constitutional rights are most required, yet exactly at that point are they crippled and destroyed,
as is happening now with this administration with its Patriot Act, with its surveillance, with its
barging into libraries to demand the names of people who take out books, with its detention of
people without any due process and without trial.
The Bush Administration has been following a course, which can only now be described as a series of crimes against humanity. The Constitution provides for impeachment for what it calls "high crimes and misdemeanors." It has never been made exactly clear what this means. Generally, the presidents that have been impeached or threatened with impeachment have had that happen, not as a result of high crimes, but as a result of relatively small actions which irritated the opposite political party. But in this case, this is a clear case for the removal of a president for committing "high crimes." What could be a higher crime than sending the young people of the country into a war against a small country on the other side of the world, which is no danger to the United States, and in fact a war which is condemned by people all over the world and a war which results in, not only the loss of American lives and the crippling of young Americans, but results in the loss of huge numbers of people in Iraq? These are high crimes.
Along with it, of course, comes the incapacity of the government to use its resources, because the
resources are being used for war. We are in the midst right now of international catastrophes, of
hurricanes, of earthquakes, which are taking the lives of tens of thousands of people. It is a crime
that we have military equipment and soldiers fighting a war, when they could be used in other
parts of the world to save peoples' lives. These are crimes, which I think the American people
now are more and more recognizing. If Congress doesn't act, and Congress has been so reluctant
to act, with the Democratic Party so feeble and really cowardly in its subservience to the Administration and its policies, in such a situation, where the political mechanisms of the government
are inadequate to address these crimes, then it is the responsibility of the people to speak up
and to demand that these crimes be recognized and that the people responsible for these crimes
be removed from office and brought to justice.
The Declaration of Independence, which is our founding philosophical document for democratic
ideas, says that "governments are established by the people" and that the purpose of government
is to ensure that people have an equal right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And
when governments become destructive of these ends, when governments become destructive of
these ends, "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish the government." That is the situation
we are in today. This government is destructive of the rights of people, of their right to life, their right to liberty. It is also destructive of the right to life of people abroad, which is why the rest of the world has opposed this war in Iraq. The government is destructive of the health of people, because, while people are dying of disease in Africa and Asia, and the Middle East, and even in this country, this government with enormous wealth at its disposal is using that wealth to wage.
We're facing a situation which really is intolerable from a moral point of view, a situation which,
not being redressed by Congress or by the Supreme Court, a situation in which democracy must
arise. Democracy must come alive, as historically in the past, where the government has failed to
act on behalf of human rights, where the government has failed to act for racial equality. Black
people in the South had to take it upon themselves to create the kind of commotion in the country
that would bring about a change. When working people were facing 12-hour days and couldn't
survive and the government was not doing anything about this, the working people themselves
had to go out on strike and stop the machinery of the economic system. Those are situations
when democracy came alive. And we face that kind of situation today. My hope is that this tribunal
will be an important step in advancing a movement which will demand that the crimes taking
place now stop, that the people responsible for it be removed from office, and that democracy
be restored in the United States.

Howard Zinn

The Commission's panel of jurists has reached a unanimous decision that George W.
Bush and his administration have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.
We find the Bush Administration guilty of all five indictments presented for which we
have received evidence: wars of aggression, torture and indefinite detention, (...).
Each of these constitutes a shocking crime in itself, and taken together the full horrors are
all the more unconscionable. It is also clear that this is an administration that demonstrates an
utter disregard for truth and flagrantly lies about the reasons for its actions.
In arriving at this decision the jurists were particularly alarmed by the degree to which
the Bush Administration's actions in all five indictments were informed by the extreme right. It
was the politics and perspective of the extreme, often religious, right that appeared in most cases
to provide the ideological framework for the Bush Administration within which the lives of the
poor, people of color and frequently non-Christians, were devalued to the extent that their human
rights were flagrantly violated. Thus, although the specific conduct differs among the indictments,
the result is the same: human life was debased and devalued by gratuitous acts of violence,
torture, narrow self interest, indifference, and disregard.
The findings outlined below were reached after careful assessment of the evidence presented
to the Commission in October 2005 and January 2006 as well as documents submitted by
the prosecutors after the hearings at the request of the jurists during the hearings.[1] The findings
are based on our application of the Standards of Judgment for the International Commission of
Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration of the United States.
As required by this standard, the Commission relied on fundamental principles of morality and
justice, and, where appropriate, customary international law and international law principles including
the United Nations Charter, The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Principles
of the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Geneva Conventions, the Torture Convention, the Torture Victims'
Protection Act, the War Crimes Act, and the international law of War Crimes and Crimes
Against Humanity.
Finally, the Commission has fulfilled its responsibility outlined in the Charter of the International Commission of Inquiry: "When the possibility of far-reaching war crimes and crimes
against humanity exists, people of conscience have a solemn responsibility to inquire into the
nature and scope of these acts and to determine if they do in fact rise to the level of war crimes
and crimes against humanity." We find that the acts of the Bush Administration in the five indictment areas do "rise to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity."

Members of the panel:
Adjoa Aiyetoro
Dennis Brutus
Abdeen Jabara
Ajamu Sankofa
Ann Wright

{[1] The final decision and judgment differs from the preliminary findings released on February 2, 2006, in several respects:
(1) the Commission has reached a conclusion on the Global Health indictment after reviewing the documents
requested at the January hearing and received after the February 2 preliminary findings; (2) the findings made for
each indictment are more detailed; (3) in one instance, the Commission found a violation although it also found that
the charge made by the prosecution was not supported by the evidence.}

(hereinafter The Commission) [extract]
Count 1: The Bush Administration authorized a war of aggression against Iraq.
As to count 1, we find that the Bush Commission authorized, under the doctrine of "preemptive
war" and a policy of "regime change", a war of aggression against Iraq.

The doctrine of "preventive war" is not recognized as a justification for war under international law. The goal of "regime change" is also not recognized as a legitimate purpose for waging war under international law. Notwithstanding these facts, the Bush Administration launched a full scale war against Iraq, a sovereign state; it did so not in self-defense or under the authorization of the United Nations Security Council. The Bush Administration knew prior to the 2003 invasion that Iraq had no connection to Al Qaeda, was disarmed, had no weapons of mass destruction, and was incapable of mounting a credible defense much less an attack on the United States. Accordingly, the Iraq war is an aggressive war in violation of international law.2
The Bush Administration steadfastly asserted only one justification for its invasion of Iraq: it
claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction3. The Bush Administration fixed and manipulated
intelligence on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to mislead deliberately
and persuade the United States population and their elected representatives to support
the war of aggression. Accordingly, what the Bush Administration called intelligence to justify
the invasion of Iraq was politically motivated propaganda deliberately concocted to prosecute a
war of aggression.4
Count 2: The Bush Administration authorized conduct of the war that involved the commission
of "war crimes."
As to Count 2, we find that the Bush Administration authorized conduct of the war that involved
the commission of war crimes.

As discussed above, the war is a war of aggression against the Iraq people. A war of aggression
is termed the supreme international war crime in international law because it is the world's most
egregious war crime. This is so because it contains within it the combined atrocities of all war
crimes. In addition to committing the supreme international war crime, the Bush Administration,
2 Testimony of Amy Bartholomew, The Commission; Testimony of Phil Shiner, World Tribunal on Iraq, (WTI).
3 Testimony of Scott Ritter, The Commission
4 Testimony of Scott Ritter, David Swanson, Larry Everest, and Ray McGovern, The Commission; Declaration of the Jury of Conscience, World Tribunal on Iraq, and Legal appendix by Richard Falk;
pursuant to its war of aggression in Iraq, has committed additional enumerated war crimes that
include but are not limited to the following:
1. The use of force beginning with the campaign of "Shock and Awe" was not a necessary
means or necessary measure to attain a lawful objective and it was a severe example of
overwhelming, indiscriminate, and disproportionate use of military force against a nation
2. The indiscriminate use of weapons such cluster munitions, incendiary bombs, depleted
uranium, and chemical weapons for which it is reasonably foreseeable would have caused
and indeed caused significant civilian injuries.6
Count 3: The Bush Administration authorized the occupation of Iraq involving, and continuing
to involve, the commission of "war crimes."
As to Count 3, we find that the Bush Administration authorized the occupation of Iraq involving
and continuing to involve, the commission of war crimes
In the spring of 2003, the Bush Administration announced a military victory in Iraq signaled by
its destruction of the Iraqi Ba'athist government at which point the United States proceeded to
occupy Iraq.
For the duration of the United States occupation of Iraq, the United States is failing to safeguard
the lives of Iraqi civilians that have resulted from the devastation created by its intentionally
bombing of civilian infrastructure, termed "Shock and Awe" and created by its ongoing criminal
acts that include but are not limited to the following:
1. Because the invasion of Iraq was the supreme war crime, the resultant occupation of Iraq
itself is a war crime.7 The occupation consisted of additional war crimes such as: collective
punishment upon the Iraqi people in the form of post invasion intentional and targeted
attacks upon civilian populations, hospitals, medical centers, residential neighborhoods,
electrical power stations and water purification facilities8 the wide spread use of
torture against the Iraqi people,9 mass arrests and detention of civilians and civilian home
demolitions10 and the destruction and desecration of the cultural and archeological heritage
of the Iraqi people11
2. Killing and injuring individual civilians through random fire during military operations
or in response to attacks by resistance forces, e.g. killing of over 40 people in a wedding
near Al Qaim, and over 600 people in Fallujah, half of them women and children. The
Bush Administration declared the City of Fallujah, a population of 350,000 people, a free
fire zone. As a result, the Bush Administration bombed 70 % of the city in 2004. The
5 Testimony of Phil Shiner, WTI
6 Testimony of Dahr Jamail, Dr. Fasy, and Stephen Bronner, The Commission
7 Center for Economic and Social Rights CESR Report, June 10, 2004;
8 Testimony of Camilo Mejia, Dennis Halliday, and Dahr Jamal, The Commission; Testimony of Ramsey Clark,
9 Declaration of the Jury of Conscience, WTI;
10 CESR Report, June 10. 2004;
11 Declaration of the Jury of Conscience, WTI;
Bush Administration also extensively and indiscriminately bombed Ramadi, Samara,
Haditha, Alkaim, Abuhisma, Sania, Najaf, Kut, Baghdad, Musul and other Iraqi cities
causing substantial civilian deaths and severe injuries.12
3. The failure of civil reconstruction, the impeding of medical care during the occupation,
and the facilitation of the corporate looting of Iraq through the rewriting of Iraq's laws.13;
4. Deliberately bombing civilian and neutral broadcasting outlets and otherwise restricting
press and media coverage of actual events.14; and
5. Extrajudicial killings at checkpoint.15


Count 1: The Bush Administration authorized the use of torture and abuse in violation of
international humanitarian and human rights law, customary international law, and domestic
constitutional and statutory law.

As to Count 1, we find that the Bush Administration authorized the use of torture and abuse in
violation of international humanitarian and human rights law, customary international law, and domestic constitutional and statutory law.

In December 2001, the Bush Administration implemented the Special Access Program that authorized the secret seizure, detention, and interrogation of persons and subjected them to torture.
The torture included but was not limited to: water boarding, beatings, the administration of electric shocks, extreme temperatures, denial of pain medication for injuries, severe burning, deprivation of food and water, and threats of death and sexual assault of family members.16.
In January 2002, the Bush Administration declared that Geneva Conventions protections will not
be honored for the "war on terror" prisoners held at the Guantánamo detention center in Cuba. In
August 2002, the Administration attempted to redefine "torture" to escape liability and/or insure
immunity for those who authorized or committed torture. Under the Bush Administration's new
torture definition, torture only exists when a person is put at risk of complete organ failure or
death. The Bush Administration also examined the ways that it could avoid liability under circumstances
where its actions exemplified its new definition of torture, including raising the defenses
of necessity and self-defense.17
The United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, admitted that Guantánamo prisoner,
Al-Qahtani was tortured at Guantánamo. Other Guantánamo detainees were subjected to ex-
12 Testimony of Dahr Jamail, The Commission; CESR Report, June 10, 2004; New York times article on Haditha,
May, 2006 ;
13 Testimony of Dahr Jamail, The Commission; CESR; Declaration of the Jury of Conscience, WTI; Testimony of
Ramsey Clark, WTI;
14 Declaration of the Jury of Conscience, WTI; Testimony of Jeremy Scahill, The Commission
15 Declaration of the Jury of Conscience, WTI;
16 Testimony of Barbara Olshansky, The Commission
17 Testimony of Barbara Olshansky, The Commission
tremes of temperature, deprived of food and water, shackled for days to the floor in extreme positions
calculated to cause pain, and denied medical care. As a direct result of this torture, detainees
suffered permanent injuries including the loss of limbs and broken bones. Other detainees
suffered severe personality decompensation and are now suffering from a range of mental illnesses.
The techniques of torture used at Guantánamo were transferred by General Geoffrey
Miller to and used on the detainees imprisoned at Abu Ghraib in Iraq.18
Persons held under United States custody in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo as well as those
held under the custody of the United States during rendition were subjected to torture, and cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment as a matter of policy and systemic practice.19
Secret detention itself is a form of torture for the person detained and for the families who were
faced with a situation that amounted to that of enforced disappearance of an individual20.
Count 2: The Bush Administration authorized the transfer ("rendition") of persons held in
U.S. custody to foreign countries where torture is known to be practiced.

As to Count 2, the Commission finds that the Bush Administration authorized the seizure, transfer, and detention ("rendition") of persons to foreign countries where torture is known to be practiced.
In late 2001, at the request of CIA Director, George Tenet, the President authorized the creation of CIA-run secret detention centers in countries outside the United States where post 9/11 detainees would be sent ("rendered") and subjected to practices that would be unlawful in the United States.22
The original rendition program was conceived by the CIA and authorized in the 1990's by the
Clinton Administration. The strategic target of the CIA rendition program has always been, and
remains the global network known as Al-Qaeda. Post 9/11, under the Bush Administration, the
CIA has taken a much larger role in the rendition program to include its participation in interrogation
of detainees rather than just placing them behind bars. Secretary of State, Condoleezza
Rice referred to this program as "extraordinary rendition.23
18 Testimony of Barbara Olshansky, The Commission
19 Testimony of Jumah al-Dossari and Barbara Olshansky, The Commission; Report: Alleged Secret Detentions and
Unlawful Inter-state Transfer involving Council of Europe Member States, Rapporteur: Mr. Dick Marty, Switzerland,
ALDE June 2006, Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Parliamentary Assembly.
20 Information Memorandum II, Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Alleged secret detentions in Council
of Europe Member States, January 22, 2006, Rapporteur: Mr. Dick Marty p. 2, see comments by United Nations
High Commissioner on Human Rights, Ms. Louise Arbour.
21 Testimony of Craig Murray, The Commission
22 Testimony of Barbara Olshansky The Commission; Testimony of Craig Murray, The Commission; Federal Register:
November 16, 2001 Vol. 66, No.222, Presidential Documents pp. 57831-36.
23 Testimony of Craig Murray, The Commission; Information Memorandum II, Committee on Legal Affairs and
Human Rights, Alleged Secret Detentions in Council of Europe Member States, January 22, 2006, Rapporteur: Mr.
Dick Marty p. 3
The result has been that captured suspects are placed outside of the reach of any judicial system and are subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques that are in themselves forms of torture.24
The Bush Administration undertook an untold number of these "extraordinary renditions" where the abductees, while under US custody or control, were tortured by CIA agents or foreign operatives.
Typical of these renditions is the case of Egyptian citizen, Hassam Mustafa Nasr, known as
Abu Omar. He was abducted by the CIA in Milan Italy on June 17th 2003 and transferred to
Egypt where he was detained. Abu Omar was tortured after his abduction and prior to his being
sent to Egypt during which time the CIA participated in the torture investigation. CIA operatives
acknowledged that rendered suspects were being tortured in Egypt. Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen,
born in Syria was detained in the United States and rendered to Syria against his wishes
where he was tortured and held for ten and a half months. Mamdouh Habib was picked up in
Pakistan and sent to Egypt where he was tortured for four months before being transferred to
Guantánamo by the United States.25
Illegal Detention:
Count 3: The Bush Administration authorized the indefinite detention of persons seized in
foreign combat zones and in other countries far from any combat zone and denied them the
protections of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war and the protections of the US Constitution.

As to Count 3, the Commission finds that the Bush Administration authorized the indefinite detention of person seized in foreign combat zones and in other countries far from any combat zone and denied them the protections of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war and the protections of the US Constitution.
On November 13th 2001, the Bush Administration created a "trial system" for trying non-citizen
detainees where the United States does not provide these detainees due process protections that
are well established in domestic and international law. The "trial system" is to be held in
Guantánamo where detainees are deprived due process rights under the fourth, fifth, sixth, and
eighth amendments of the United States Constitution.
Persons have been or are currently detained in these detention centers without charge and are being
held indefinitely. These US controlled detention centers are in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as
well as in several sites in Eastern Europe and North Africa. The Bush Administration declared
24 Testimony of Craig Murray, The Commission; Report, Section C, 2.1 Para. 35 and 26 of Alleged Secret Detentions and Unlawful Inter-state Transfer Involving Council of Europe Member States, Rapporteur: Mr. Dick Marty, Switzerland, ALDE June 2006, Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Parliamentary Assembly; Also see:
Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper October 2004, The United States Disappeared: The CIA's Long-Term Ghost Detainees; Amnesty International Report, April 5, 2006: Below the Radar: Secret Flights To Torture and Disappearance
25 Testimony of Barbara Olshansky, The Commission; Information Memorandum II, Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Alleged secret detentions in Council of Europe Member States, January 22, 2006, Rapporteur:
Mr. Dick Marty p. 8 and 13
that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to these detainees who were defined as "enemy combatants", a term not valid under international law.26
Round ups
Count 4: The Bush Administration authorized the round-up and detention in the United
States of tens of thousands of immigrants on pretextual grounds and held them without
charge or trial in violation of international law and domestic constitutional and civil rights

As to Count 4, the Commission finds that the Bush Administration authorized the round-up and
detention in the United States of thousands (the exact number is unknown) of immigrants on pretextual grounds and held many of them illegally long past the resolution of their immigration status.

The FBI and INS, under the rubric of very large immigration sweeps, rounded up and detained
immigrants, mostly Arabs, Muslims or South Asian men. The sweeps were a flagrant example
of racial profiling. The detainees could not call their family, nor call their consulate. Very few
were permitted out on bond. They were in a legal black hole. Many were brutalized by guards
and held in virtual solitary confinement. These actions were in violation of international law and
domestic constitutional law.
In September 2001, the Bush Administration authorized the seizures and detention of US immigrants
in US detention centers. The seizures and detentions in the United States were called "material
witness "seizures by the US Justice Department. The Commission finds that the Bush Administration
held possibly hundreds of people under the material witness statute without charge
or trial in violation of international and domestic constitutional and civil rights law. In many
cases, people who merely looked Arab or South Asian were picked up first based on uncorroborated
tips and then held if they had a minor immigration violation or were designated as a material
witness. No one knows exactly how many are still being held in the United States pending
deportation or as material witnesses; evidence strongly suggests that it may be hundreds. They
are held without charge and denied basic principles of due process and judicial review. These
practices contravene the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights.
Another category of detainees are people who entered the United States for purposes other than
becoming a permanent resident, for example, on a visitor or student visa (non-immigrants).
Thousands of such individuals were subjected to the National Registration Act, a post 9/11 law.
This act was intended to register and monitor non-immigrants from countries designated by the
Secretary of State entering or already in the United States but in fact was used as a means of ar-
26 Testimony of Barbara Olshansky, The Commission; Report, Section C, 2.1 Para. 35 and 26: Alleged Secret Detentions
and Unlawful Inter-state Transfer Involving Council of Europe Member States, Rapporteur: Mr. Dick
Marty, Switzerland, ALDE June 2006, Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Parliamentary Assembly;
Also see: Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper October 2004, The United States Disappeared: The CIA's Long-Term Ghost Detainees; Amnesty International Report, April 5, 2006: Below the Radar: Secret Flights To Torture and Disappearance
resting and deporting these individuals. In addition, the Act was enforced in an discriminatory
manner only against Muslims and Arab visitors, and in an arbitrary manner in that some people
were deported to countries from which they had previously been granted political asylum. The
discriminatory and arbitrary enforcement of the Act contravene the International Covenant for
Civil and Political Rights.27
Indefinite Detentions
Count 5: The Bush Administration used military force to seize and detain indefinitely
without charges U.S. citizens, denying them the right to challenge their detention in U.S,

As to Count 5, the Commission finds that the Bush Administration used military force to seize
and detain indefinitely without charges U.S. citizens, denying them the right to challenge their
detention in U.S. courts.

The Bush Administration seized and detained within the United States persons who are United
States citizens. The Bush Administration has classified these seized persons as "enemy combatants."
For example, Yaser Hamdi, A US citizen, was detained in Afghanistan and placed in
United States custody. There is also Jose Padilla, a US citizen, who was arrested in O'Hare airport
by law enforcement agent and later transferred to military custody at the request of the
President. These detainees were taken into US military custody after they had been declared
"enemy combatants" by the Bush Administration. All such "enemy combatant" detainees were
denied a judicial hearing on the facts or on the legality of their detention. In each case and in
violation of the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, the United States took the position
that the president has the authority to hold "enemy combatants" and decide their status unilaterally.
The US Supreme Court subsequently gave meaning to the Bush Administration's made up term
"enemy combatant." The Court limited the meaning to persons who, while in Afghanistan, had
taken up arms against the United States in alliance with the Taliban or other terrorists and as long
as hostilities existed. The Bush Administration proceeded to violate the Supreme Court's definition
as exemplified by the fact that Mr. Padilla was not arrested in Afghanistan or anywhere
near a battlefield, and was not shown to have ever taken up arms against the United States in Afghanistan
or elsewhere.28
Count 6: The Bush Administration committed murder by authorizing the CIA to kill those
that the president designates either US citizens or non-citizens, anywhere in the world.

27 Testimony of Barbara Olshansky, The Commission
28 Testimony of Barbara Olshansky, The Commission; (Also see: Supreme Court, US decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,
No. 05-184, 2006)
As to Count 6, the Commission finds that the Bush Administration committed murder by authorizing the CIA to kill those that the president designates, either US citizens or non-citizens, anywhere in the world and where this authorization was acted upon causing death.
Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, issued a secret directive to Special Operations forces
allowing them to "capture terrorists for interrogation or, if necessary, to kill them" anywhere in
the world.29. The Bush Administration had already issued a presidential finding authorizing the
killing of terrorist leaders, but the secret Rumsfeld directive increased such efforts.30 The Bush
Administration, claiming that terrorists are military combatants, never rescinded a preexisting
presidential executive order signed by US President Ford in 1976 that banned all assassinations.
In February 2002, a Predator drone missile was launched by the CIA; it targeted for assassination
someone intelligence agents thought was bin Laden. The drone hit its target, but killed three innocent
Afghan farmers instead.31 The first successful assassination takes place in November
2003 when the CIA launched a Hellfire drone missile that killed US citizen Kamal Derwish and
five others in Yemen. The United States considered the dead men to be enemy combatants in its
global war on terror.32
The Commission is sponsored by the Not In Our Name statement of conscience, joined by the
following individuals and organizations:

James Abourezk, former United States Senator
As'ad AbuKhalil, professor of politics & public administration, California State University-Stanislaus
Dirk Adriaensens, BRussells Tribunal executive committee and coordinator SOS Iraq
After Downing Street
Dr. Nadje Al-Ali, social anthropologist at the Univ. of Exeter, founding member of Act Together: Women's Action on Iraq & and member Women in Black UK
Anthony Alessandrini, organizer with the World Tribunal on Iraq and New York University Students for Justice in Palestine
Edward Asner
Michael Avery, president of the National Lawyers Guild and professor, Suffolk Law School
Russell Banks, novelist
The Rev. Luis Barrios, Ph.D., associate professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice & Anglican Priest
Amy Bartholomew, professor of law at Carleton University
Greg Bates, Common Courage Press
Tony Benn, former chairman of the British Labour Party
Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies
Michael S. Berg, grieving father of Nick Berg killed in Iraq May 7, 2004, and one man for Peace
Ayse Berktay, from the organizing team of the World Tribunal on Iraq
William Blum, author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
Francis Boyle, author of Destroying World Order and professor at the University of Illinois College of Law
Jean Bricmont, BRussells Tribunal executive committee
Center for Constitutional Rights
Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild
Lieven De Cauter, BRussells Tribunal executive committee
Patrick Deboosere, BRussells Tribunal executive committee
Eve Ensler, playwright
Peter Erlinder, William Mitchell College of Law and lead defense counsel, United Nations Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Arusha, Tanzania
Larry Everest, author of Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda and Behind the Poison Cloud: Union Carbide's Bhopal Massacre
Richard Falk, professor emeritus of International Law, Princeton, and Visiting Professor in Global and International Studies, UC-Santa Barbara
Thomas M. Fasy, MD, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City
Lawrence Ferlinghetti, member, American Academy of Arts & Letters and founder & editor in chief, City Lights Books, San Francisco
The Rev. Dr. James E. Fitzgerald, minister for mission and social justice, The Riverside Church
Ted Glick, former coordinator, Independent Progressive Politics Network
Dr. Elaine C. Hagopian, former president of Association of Arab-American University Graduates (AAUG) and primary founder of the Trans-Arab Research Institute (TARI)
Sam Hamill. director, Poets Against War International Movement for a Just World (JUST), Malaysia
Abdeen Jabara, past president, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Dahr Jamail, U.S. independent journalist who has reported extensively from Iraq since the invasion
C. Clark Kissinger, contributing writer for Revolution and initiator of the Not In Our Name statement of conscience
The Reverend Doctor Earl Kooperkamp, Rector, St. Mary's Episcopal Church, West Harlem, New York
Joel Kovel, editor-in-chief, Capitalism Nature Socialism: A Quarterly Journal of Socialist Ecology, and author of The Enemy of Nature
Jesse Lemisch, professor of history emeritus, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine and author of The Left Hand of God: Taking Back America from the Religious Right
Rev. Davidson Loehr, Ph.D., First Unitarian Universalist Church of Austin, Texas National Lawyers Guild
National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Rev. Davidson Loehr, Ph.D., First Unitarian Universalist Church of Austin, Texas
Robert Meeropol, Executive Director, Rosenberg Fund for Children New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee
New Jersey Workers Democracy Network
National Lawyers Guild
National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Not In Our Name Project
Barbara Olshansky, deputy legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and author of Secret Trials and Executions
James Petras, professor emeritus of sociology at Binghamton University, New York
Jeremy Pikser, screenwriter
Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and author with Ellen Ray of Guantanamo: What the World Should Know
Stephen F. Rohde, civil liberties lawyer and co-founder of Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace
Marc Sapir, MD, MPH, co-convener of the UC Berkeley Teach In on Torture and executive director of Retro Poll
Sister Annette M. Sinagra, OP
Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics, Princeton University
State of Nature on-line magazine
U.S. Tour of Duty
Inge Van de Merlen, BRussells Tribunal executive committee
Gore Vidal
Anne Weills, civil rights attorney in Oakland, National Lawyers Guild
Leonard Weinglass, criminal defense attorney
Naomi Weisstein, professor emeritus of Neuroscience, State University of NY at Buffalo
Howard Zinn, historian
[institutions for identification only]
Standards of Judgment for the International Commission of
Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the
Bush Administration of the United States

When the possibility of far-reaching war crimes and crimes against humanity exists, people
of conscience have a solemn responsibility to inquire into the nature and scope of
these acts and to determine if they do in fact rise to the level of war crimes and crimes
against humanity. That is the mission of the International Commission of Inquiry on
Crimes Against Humanity. This tribunal will, with care and rigor, present evidence and
assess whether George W. Bush and his administration have committed crimes against
-- From the Charter of The International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes
Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration of the United States
The need for this tribunal, as an instrumentality of world humanity, arises from the historical,
moral and political responsibility of people of conscience to sit in judgment of this administration:
to inquire and assess whether this administration has committed crimes that do in fact rise
to the levels of crimes against humanity as popularly understood and conceived, that is, acts that,
by their scale or nature, shock the conscience of humankind.
Crimes against humanity are brutal crimes that are not isolated incidents but that involve large
and systematic actions often cloaked with official authority. These include mass murder, extermination,
enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts perpetrated against a population,
conducted in wartime or not. Apartheid and persecution on political, ethnic, and gender grounds
have also been considered inhumane acts causing great suffering, and therefore crimes against
We see the need to proceed from this first-principles definition of crimes against humanity precisely
because of the singular nature of some of this administration's actions and the lack of relevant
precedent in existent law. This is especially true for judging categories of crimes other than
wars of aggression and torture, where precedent and conventional standards do exist within international
We are not pre-determining a minimum quantitative level required to constitute a "mass scale" --
or "large and systematic action" -- within our definition of crimes against humanity. Rather, we
are focusing on the overall nature and scope of the impact of these actions and policies. Nor are
we making a criterion of explicit intentionality. The jury of conscience will inquire into and assess
whether the Bush administration policies involve foreseen or foreseeable risk of catastrophic
or genocidal proportions. The question is not whether the Bush administration is intentionally
setting out to make millions suffer with its global warming and global health policies, for example.
Rather, the question is, whether such suffering is clearly the predictable consequences of
policies guided by ideological and political goals?
Such culpability must also distinguish actions specific to the Bush administration from general
systemic causes and the actions of previous administrations (even where such actions themselves
may rise to the level of crimes against humanity).
Proceeding from the tribunal's Charter and its mission, the character of this commission is sui
generis -- a unique response by people of conscience to the unprecedented historical responsibility
before us. The Commission's Charter states, "The tribunal's legitimacy is derived from its
integrity, its rigor in the presentation of evidence, and the stature of its participants." Its political
and moral authority is based on high standards which are not arbitrary and capricious but predefined
and consistent. These standards are critical to safeguarding findings of this commission
from arbitrariness, a priori political motivations, or other forms of subjectivity.
Though it is not a court of law with power to impose sanctions, the "judicial" character of the
Commission's conduct, proceedings, and verdict is foundational to its integrity and its historic
mission. As the Charter states, "Well-established international law will be referenced where applicable,
but the tribunal will not be limited by the scope of customary international law." This
commission is neither attempting to develop new international law per se, nor tortuously applying
current law to force-fit its proceedings and findings into existing legal frameworks. Rather,
through the rigorous presentation of expert and witness testimony, documents, and other evidence,
the Commission aims to establish the truth about major acts and policies of the Bush administration
in the areas specified in the Charter. In addition, "representatives of the administration
will be invited to present a defense."
The historic and political responsibility before this tribunal lies in delivering findings of fact and
a verdict on the central question before the commission: "whether George W. Bush and his administration
have committed crimes against humanity." As the Charter mandates, "The Commission's
jury of conscience will come to verdicts and its findings will be published." The jury of
conscience will carefully assess the evidence and base its conclusions on the sufficiency of the
evidence. In assessing sufficiency, we are aware that some acts constitute crimes against humanity
in and of themselves, while other particular acts may be instances of more general patterns of
conduct that constitute such crimes.
We must continuously return to the fact that the need for this Commission flows precisely from
the real and horrendous crimes being committed and our historical, moral and political responsibility as people of conscience.
We reaffirm that "The Commission will conduct its work with a deep sense of responsibility to the people of the world."

Annette A., New Orleans survivor of Hurricane Katrina
Saleh Ajaj, Victim of arbitrary detention in the US after 9/11
Anthony Alesandrini, World Tribunal on Iraq

Jay Arena, Housing rights advocate from New Orleans
Abigail B., School bus driver from Houston blocked by authorities from rescuing people from
New Orleans
Amy Bartholomew, Professor of law, Carleton University
Dr. Alan Berkman, Professor of epidemiology, Columbia University School of Public Health
Vanessa Brocato, International Policy Associate, Sexuality Information and Education Council
of the United States (SIECUS), author of SIECUS PEPFAR
Stephen Bronner, Professor of political science, Rutgers University
Dr. Robert Bullard, Director, Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University,
Author, "Quest for Environmental Justice: Human Rights & the Politics of Pollution"
Eric Carter, Common Ground Collective, New Orleans
John Clark, Professor of Environmental Studies, Loyola University, New Orleans
Naina Dhingra, Advocates for Youth
King Downing, National Coordinator of the ACLU's Campaign Against Racial Profiling
Larry Everest, Author, "Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda"
Dr. Thomas Fasy, Professor of pathology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Campaign Against
Depleted Uranium

Chris Fox, Chairman, Department of Environmental Science & Technology, Community College
of Baltimore County
Lindsey German, Convenor, UK Stop the War Coalition
Ted Glick, Climate Crisis Coalition
Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network
Arron Guyton, Common Ground Collective, New Orleans
Denis Halliday, ex-UN Assistant Secretary-General, former head of UN Humanitarian Mission
In Iraq
Dahr Jamail, Independent journalist, reported extensively from Iraq

Tanya Jones, Filmmaker from New Orleans
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, former commander Abu Ghraib prison, author of "One Woman's
Army : The Commanding General of Abu Ghraib Tells Her Story"

Mark Krasnoff & Monique Verdin, Cajun community activists and filmmakers
Eric Lerner, New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee
Larry McBride, who was left to drown in a New Orleans prison when Katrina struck
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst
Panel of Jurists
Adjoa A. Aiyetoro, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Arkansas at Little Rock. She has
servied as Executive Director, National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL), the Director of
Administration for the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc., a consultant to the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Chief Legal Consultant for the National
Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (N'COBRA).
Dennis Brutus, professor emeritus, Department of Africana Studies, University of Pittsburgh.
Currently visiting scholar. Centre for Civil Society University of Kwazulu-Natal, Durban, South
Africa. Holds several honorary doctorates, former political prisoner on Robben Island in South
Africa. Published several books including Poetry and Protest; a Dennis Brutus reader, Haymarket
Press Chicago. University of Kwazulu Press, Durban.
Abdeen Jabara, former President, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. In the mid-
1980s, he played a major role in exposing the Nixon administration's Operation Boulder program,
a program begun in the 1960s that included surveillance, deportations and other incidents
involving the Arab and Arab-American community in the United States.
Ajamu Sankofa, lives in Brooklyn, NY. He is a human rights public policy specialist and community
organizer. He is the former executive director of the NYC chapter of Physicians for Social
Responsibility. He is a consultant for the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in
America, Legal Defense, Research and Education Fund and he chairs the NYC local organizing
committee of Health Care-Now.
Ann Wright, is a retired United States Army Colonel, retired official of the U.S. State Department,
and now full-time anti-war activist. She currently sits on the Board of Directors for organizations
Operation Truth/Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and Veterans for Common
Sense. Wright is most noted for being one of three U.S. State Department officials to publicly
resign in direct protest of the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003.
Wars of Aggression: Stephen Bronner, Larry Everest, Ray McGovern
Torture and Detention: Marjorie Cohn, Eric Lerner, Barbara Olshansky
Global Environment: Ted Glick
Health and Reproductive Rights: Ida Susser, Jonathan Garcia
Destruction of New Orleans: Carl Dix, King Downing, Dionne Franklin, Chokwe Lumumba
by Harry Belafonte

Thank you very much. I would to first express my great sense of privilege, and opportunity to be
part of this evening's tribunal and what we will be seeing and hearing. I would like to also extend
my respects to the panel and to the tasks you have before you, and what we will be hearing.
It is most gratuitous that this should be taking place at the end of a week of celebration of the
memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This nation has never, ever produced a greater citizen,
who stood and still stands for the principles for why we are all gathered here: the pursuit of justice, the pursuit of human rights, the pursuit of human dignity.

Theodore Roosevelt once said that when the powers of state, that having been mandated to reach out and to protect the interest of the people, begin to usurp the Constitution and undermine our laws, that it is the responsibility of the citizens to rise up and to speak against this process. And, to in fact, insist upon the changing of the guard, the changing of regime. And those, (applause), those citizens who fail to hear that call, in fact should be charged with patriotic treason (Applause).
I think none gathered here this evening can be so charged.
It is important when all the instruments of government collapse, we go in the final hour, to the
most important line of battle: the people themselves. The people of this nation, I think, and I
know it, are awake, and are being more awakened every day. They are hearing and sensing the
danger that sits on the horizon. Looking at the international oppressions that we are a part of,
looking at how we have violated international humanity and law, one day this tribunal I hope,
will reach out, and in its investigation look at the oppression and illegal experiences people in
this nation are experiencing themselves.
On 9/11, we were all stunned by the tragic events that took place when the Twin Towers collapsed,
and this terrorism was put upon our people. Two thousand lost their lives. Two thousand
who were innocent, two thousand who did not cause war. And we said they were terrorists and
we should hunt them down and bring them to justice. Tell me, where for you does the line blur?
When a nation as powerful as this, the most powerful in the history of human existence, and
those who have dubiously come to power and who are reigning over the will of this nation, when they lie and mislead the citizens of this country, when they put before us fear and then govern by terrorism -- where does the line blur for you? When our sons and daughters are sent to die in foreign battlefields, each day we claim the lives of tens and thousands of innocent men, women, and children, in other places -- where for you does terrorism end and where does it begin, and who are the terrorists?
Those who would choose to detract the real meaning of this tribunal, the real meaning of this
people's moment, would suggest to you that we are somehow perhaps irrelevant. Well, I guess
Paul Revere was considered at one point irrelevant, when he called for the alarm against the red
I know very well that at the beginning, Dr. Martin Luther King was considered irrelevant. I know
that there are so many that have called for the awakening of our citizens to look at what is happening
to us and to seize our rights to put us back into democratic governance. Always in the beginning,
we are minimalized, marginalized and relegated to the dustbins of history. We have
prevailed before and we will prevail again.
I am honored to be a part of this process, and anything
I can do to help broaden its base, to help broaden it's inquiry, and to help save the soul of
our nation, I welcome the opportunity and I will so serve. Thank you.
By Michael Ratner

When Clark Kissinger called me yesterday and said, I'll be sharing a platform with Harry Belafonte,
I said, "well, maybe you want to put me on for tomorrow." But here I am, and of course
I'm proud to be even in any kind of association with Harry Belafonte. And I'm sure you're all
familiar with Harry Belafonte's comments that he made to President Chavez in Venezuela a few
days ago. And if you don't remember them, I'll repeat them. "No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush, says, we're here to tell you that not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people support your revolution."
Now what's remarkable about that, and of course Harry Belafonte was heavily attacked for that. But, as he has never been willing to do, he did not retreat from the statement. And if you go on the net you come to what he said, at the Children's Defense Fund, a few days later, and what he says
was, "so I made my remarks, they may stir up controversy, but then it's time to talk about new
definitions, new points of view." And that's what Harry Belafonte was doing, and that is what
we are doing here today, and over the next two days, at these Commissions.
The other important point about being here, at Riverside of course, is that in April 1967, this is
the place, this church, where Martin Luther King openly, and notoriously I should say, opposed
the war in Vietnam. The speech was called "Beyond Vietnam: A time to break the silence." It's a
historic place for that reason, and he began that speech with these words: "A time comes when
silence is betrayal. That time has come for us, in relation to Vietnam." And then in that speech,
he lays out a 5-point program. But the ultimate point of that program was: remove all foreign
troops from Vietnam. Incredibly, even though it was Martin Luther King saying that, in 1967, it
took 9 more years, millions of Vietnamese deaths, and thousands of American deaths, to do so.
We today model our conduct on that of Dr. Martin Luther King. As he said then, we say today, a time comes when silence is betrayal. That time has come for us, in relationship to the war in Iraq. It is time for us to bring the troops home now.
A people's trial, a people's commission, is not without important precedents. Almost 40 years
ago, in 1968, there was another people's trial. It was held in Sweden and Denmark. Originally it
was to be held in France. But the French wouldn't allow it; they prohibited it, because it was
about Vietnam, and of course the French had been very deeply involved in the subjugation of
Vietnam. The witnesses at that people's trial were well-known progressives, including Jean-Paul Sartre. They gathered in Stockholm and Copenhagen, and they were there to judge another human outrage in our history, the brutal and inhuman Vietnam War. Bertrand Russell, the famous English philosopher, was one of the key participants in that trial. In fact, it was called the Russell War Crimes Tribunal. Russell opened that trial, and here is what he said: "We meet at an alarming time. Overwhelming evidence besieges us daily of crimes without precedent. We investigate in order to expose; we document in order to indict; we arouse consciousness in order to create mass resistance."
And so, as Russell said then, we say today: we are putting the Bush administration on trial. We investigate in order to expose; we document in order to indict; we arouse consciousness in order to create mass resistance. We want this trial to be a step in the building of mass resistance to war, to torture, to the destruction of earth and its people. It's a serious moment.
Our country and our world are at a tipping point. Tipping toward permanent war, the end
of human rights, and the impoverishment and death of millions. We still have a chance, an opportunity
to stop this slide into chaos. But it is up to us. We must not sit with our arms folded,
and we must be as radical as the reality we are facing.
The witnesses you will hear over the next few days are the truth-tellers: the witnesses to the carnage
this country and this administration has wrought. This truth challenges us — challenges us
all to act. We, particularly the American people, have not heard or seen the truth. And if some
do, in their comfort and complacency, they often turn away. The truth is hidden. It is hidden
through cover-up language, euphemisms, legalisms, obfuscations, false investigations, the blaming
of low-level individuals: all meant to hide the reality of the criminal involvement of high officials
of this administration. The criminal involvement in war, torture, global and human destruction.
Let's take a look at a few of these examples, and there are many. The failure in this country, and
the media, my pundits everywhere we look, to look at the reality- a reality this commission will
examine. I'm sure most of you are familiar with the first example: the war in Iraq. Supposedly,
the war was to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Now it is said: that was a mistake.
It was bad intelligence. The administration says it, and much of Congress says, the Press says it,
"Had we only known — but we thought they had weapons of mass destruction. So we must in
the future get better intelligence." As if that explains or excuses why we went to war. But of
course, that explanation — the failure of intelligence — and still the current explanation of today,
by the elites, hides the real reasons for war. It blames some negligent officials, individuals,
at the CIA, for leading us into war. All we need to do according to them is correct that, and we
won't be in mistaken wars any longer. Mistaken wars will come to an end. If you believe that,
you believe in the tooth fairy. We all know that is not the truth. In fact, in 1967, Martin Luther
King predicted it. He said we will be marching and protesting wars for the rest of our lives as
long as we are on the wrong side of history. And we are on the wrong side of history.
Sometimes I ask myself: why did we progressives know the weapons of mass destruction story
was a cover for war? But Congress and the media claimed they could not? Because they — all of
them, Democrats, Republicans, the media — they were all reading from the same page. And that
page is U.S. world exploitation and domination. And of course what does the truth tell us about
the war in Iraq? It tells us that it's an aggressive war, a crime against peace, and according to the judgment at Nuremberg, that kind of war is the most heinous of all war crimes.
I can give you
other examples: Clark had referred to one. For example, the fact that they say that we do not torture.
All of a sudden in this country, torture is not torture. Or at worst it is abuse. And even that
abuse, it is no worse than a fraternity prank. Or if it was abuse, it was because abusive techniques
were only for use in Guantánamo. What sense does that make? Used in Guantánamo — and
somehow they migrated to Iraq? But what does "migrated to Iraq" mean? Are they birds, like a
bird migrates? Without any human agent, torture techniques move from one place to another? Or
we are told that it is a few bad apples, but no responsibilities for the higher-ups. And yet the media
has gone along with this, with these lies and these cover-ups. Even worse, serious media dis-
cussion and respectability is given to the legal justifiers. For example, John Yoo, a lawyer for the
administration, who wrote that you could torture in the name of national security — much like
the Pinochet defense, torture in the name of national security. I was utterly shocked the other day
when I picked up the New York Times and there on the back page they had asked half a dozen
people what questions would you ask the potential new Supreme Court Judge Alito? And there
they asked John Yoo, 'what question would he ask him'. They are giving credibility to a man
who should not be on the back of the New York Times but should be in the docks but who
should be in the docks facing justice.
Let there be no doubt this administration is engaged in massive violations of the law. Torture is
an international crime. It is a grave breech of the Geneva conventions. And almost no one is telling you that. And in this country it is anathema to do so.

The war, torture, (...) are not looked at as failures or as products of the system.
The truths are hidden and by hiding it we are disempowered; so we are here this weekend to
hear truth tellers to empower people. It is not just a few bad apples, it is not mistakes or bad
choices, it is not just bad managers and getting better ones; but something much more fundamental.
It's that awful alchemy as Dr. Martin Luther King described it in this very church — the giant
triplets of racism extreme materialism and militarism.
I want to say a few words about one aspect of the current period that is extremely frightening.
Probably the most frightening although it does have roots in prior administrations. The short
hand for the expression of this period and the scare and fear that I feel is, "The king can do no
wrong" or the word might be tyranny, police state or dictatorship. I recall that after 9/11, within a
few months afterwards, I wrote an article. It was entitled, "Moving toward a police state — or
have we arrived?" And I remember being nervous about it because this was pretty aggressive to
be saying a few months after 9/11. Was I gonna get trashed for it? Did it really reflect reality? I
wasn't sure. I had some evidence in front of me. I had the Patriot Act. I had internal detentions. I
had the President's military order that allows him to pick up people anywhere in the world and
detain them in Guantánamo or elsewhere. But I still was willing to say 'moving toward a police
state', not have 'we arrived'. And a police state to me is one were authority is not under law,
where the legislature is overridden, and where our courts are ignored. Where one can be jailed
without a court proceeding or trial and where the president, king or what have you, can do as he
pleases — wire tap, torture, and disappear people. Unfortunately, and dangerously that is the
situation we are in today.
You are familiar with much of the evidence, some of which I have laid out, some of which the
next two days will address. There is however one piece of important evidence I want to bring to
your attention. In which the president, their president, not our president, is open and notorious
about his aims, public if you will; and if you miss it you have to be an ostrich with your head in
the ground. What he has done is basically lay the plan for what has to be called a coup-de-tat in
America. And it's a small (Applause) it is a small paragraph and it's contained in what we call a
'signing statement.' It was signed on December 30th and it's the signing statement to what we
call the McCain amendment. You probably all remember the McCain amendment. That's the
amendment that prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, or supposedly prohibits it.
The president as you recall, resisted the McCain amendment. But in the end he had to sign it because
it was part of a broader military authorization to pay for what we're doing in Iraq. And
when the president signs legislation, he sometimes and more recently with President Bush, he
issues a signing statement as to what his understanding of the law is. The president's statement
on McCain is only one short paragraph. But it is historic. It is unprecedented. And if you're looking
for the grab for power that allows you, permits you, compels you to call this a tyranny it is
that paragraph.
It makes three points and I'll paraphrase. First, speaking as the president, 'My authority as commander
in chief allows me to do whatever I think is necessary in the war on terror including use
torture. Second, the Commander in Chief cannot be checked by Congress. Third, the Commander
in Chief cannot be checked by the courts.' There it is. There you have it. That boring
stuff I learned as a junior high school student about checks and balances or about limited law or
about authority under law - out the window. Gone. In other words, the republic and democracy is
over. In Germany what did they call that? They called that the Führer's law. Why? Because the
Führer was the law. That's what George Bush is saying here. George Bush is the law.

This assertion of power is so blatant so open, and so notorious, that it is finally shocking some
people like former Vice President Gore to speak up. And I'm sure many of you are familiar with
what he said in his recent speech on Martin Luther King's birthday. Quote: "The President of the United State has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently." He was referring to the NSA spying scandal. And then he went on to say, "A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government." And then he said, "An executive who acts free of the will of Congress as this president says he can, or the check of the judiciary, as this president says he can, becomes the central threat that the founders sought to nullify in the Constitution." And then he quotes James Madison. "To the effect that what President Bush has done is the very definition of tyranny." So there you have it. It's not just us, its not just progressives, but even someone like former Vice President Gore is saying the very definition of tyranny.

I believe that the president and this grab for power will be repudiated. But it will not just happen.
The pendulum does not swing back automatically. It will take an aroused public and an aroused
people. And so the question is really - where do we go from here? One place I can tell you not to
go is: don't go to the Democrats in Washington. I have to tell you (Applause) I've have never in
my life been kicked in the teeth so badly as I was on the Guantánamo cases when we took that to
the Democrats in Washington. Now I'm just gonna say it here, there is a million reasons I can
tell you don't go there, but this one is called the Graham-Levin Bill. And after we win the right
to go court for the detainees at Guantánamo, and we win that in the Supreme Court, Republican
Senator Graham and Democrat Senator Levin get together - and what do they decide to do a few
weeks ago? But strip the courts of any jurisdiction to hear the Guantánamo cases. That's what
they do - Democrats and Republicans together. And then they say you can use evidence from
torture to keep those people in jail. Kicking us right in the teeth! Kicking the courts in the teeth.
And so if you think that we're going to get far by going there, you've got it wrong. Lessons of
history teach us that we don't move our leaders without the passion and the protest of the people.
I want to close with a sense of hope. It's been a rough four years, it's been a rough twenty years,
it's been a rough forty years since Dr. King spoke. But I want to close with a sense of hope. This
administration is unraveling. There is a split in the elites. Gore is one of the best examples. Everywhere we see former administration officials speaking out. They realize the administration has gone too far. They want to save some remnant of democracy. We see indictments from Scooter Libby to Delay coming fast and furious. We see General Miller, responsible for torture in Guantánamo and Iraq, taking the 5th amendment essentially so he won't have to testify. We see
General Sanchez, who was head of troops in Iraq, retiring without that 4th star. It's a real opening
for us but it is not simply to go back to the normal. It's not simply to save a remnant of democracy.
The malady is much deeper than that. We need a radical transformation of our society. My
hopes for today and for the future is that the truth will arouse resistance and with resistance there will be some change. I mean resistance of every sort, mobilizing, protesting, disobeying and disobedience.

And then again, when I was reading Dr. King's speech, the thought that he closed
with, and that I want to close with, is that sometimes we can wait too long to take action. Or as
Dr. King said, "you can be too late." And we, unless we act, may be too late. So let me end with
Dr. King's directive to us all: "We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today.
We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. There is such a thing as being too late.
We still have a choice today. Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and
bitter, but beautiful struggle for our new world."
Thank you. We'll do this together.
Michael Ratner is President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and was co-counsel in Rasul
vs. Bush, the historic case of Guantánamo detainees, in which the Supreme Court ruled that U.S.
courts do indeed have jurisdiction over Guantánamo. Ratner is an expert in international human
rights law, and is a past President of the National Lawyers' Guild.

* * *

tiistai, 5. helmikuu 2008



This site is dedicated to the victims of September 11, 2001 tragedy: