The bipartisan panel that investigated the terrorist attacks was widely praised.
But did its final report rely on suspect information?
From the magazine issue dated Mar 23, 2009
Powerful Democrats on Capitol Hill are clamoring for creation of a bipartisan
“9/11 style” commission to investigate the legality of the Bush administration’s
antiterrorism tactics–especially its use of harsh interrogation techniques.
President Obama has been notably cool to the idea. But the case for a “truth”
commission was bolstered by the disclosure this month that the CIA had destroyed
92 videotapes of the interrogations and confinement of Al Qaeda suspects. A
dozen showed the use of “enhanced” techniques routinely described
by human-rights groups as torture.
Lawmakers say the obvious model for such an inquiry would be the 9/11 Commission–an
independent bipartisan body praised for its authoritative account of the attacks.
But as a reporter who covered the commission from start to finish and later
wrote a history of its investigation, I wonder if Congress understands the deep
irony of establishing a “new 9/11 Commission” on these issues. Former
commission investigators have acknowledged to me over the past year that the
panel had a serious blind spot on questions about torture.
The commission appears to have ignored obvious clues throughout 2003 and 2004
that its account of the 9/11 plot and Al Qaeda’s history relied heavily on information
obtained from detainees who had been subjected to torture, or something not
far from it.
The panel raised no public protest over… Continue reading
March 11, 2009
Can someone explain to me how 5 suspected members of Al Qaeda (although there is no question regarding KSM) suddenly got their own PR machine from inside Gitmo and at the hands of a military judge, not to mention getting a world stage through which to frighten Americans some more? And the media? Well, they are too well versed in stupid to ask any sensible questions:
“Five Guantánamo prisoners accused in the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the U.S. staunchly defended their actions, calling the operation “blessed” and “great” and the accusations against them “badges of honor.”
“You are the last nation that has the right to speak about civilians and killing civilians,” the five said in a response this month to the U.S. government’s war crimes charges.
“You are professional criminals, with all the meaning the words carry,” the response said. “Therefore, we will treat you the same. We will attack you, just like you have attacked us, and whomever initiated the attacks is the guilty party.”
The six-page response from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who plotted the attacks, and four others castigates the actions of the United States and its allies in the Middle East and calls the United States “the terrorist country number one in the world.”‘
Okay, now someone explain the following to me:
1. How did 5 alleged Al Qaeda members come together to form this statement, given that they are being held each in isolation at Gitmo?…Continue reading
Terrell (Terry) E. Arnold was the number 2 counter-terrorism official at the U.S. State Department, and is one of the world’s leading experts on terror.
Arnold served as the Deputy Director, Office of Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Planning, at the U.S. State Department. He is also the former Chairman of the Department of International Studies at the National War College.
Arnold has worked as a crisis management consultant for several Federal agencies, including The State Department, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Customs Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He is the author of numerous books on terror*. Arnold is a U.S. Navy veteran of World War II and the Korean war.
I spoke with Arnold by phone.
GW: Your essay It is Vital to Move Beyond 9/11 is insightful and hard-hitting, and I agree with virtually everything you say. I have previously written on many of the topics you touch on, such as false pretenses for war , torture and illegal spying .
Initially, you write:
“As an alleged post 9/11 defense, the War on Terrorism is a gigantic fraud.”
As a leading counter-terrorism expert, I am curious to hear why you believe this.
Terry Arnold: The military approach doesn’t cover all of the elements of the problem. We need to capture and confine the individuals who are up to… Continue reading
By Brian Stelter
February 2, 2009
coming episode of the acclaimed FX drama “Rescue Me” will tackle what may sound
like a far-fetched plot line: that the attacks of Sept. 11 were an “inside job.”
The actor who espouses the theories on camera, it turns out, also subscribes
to them in real life.
Claims that Al Qaeda terrorists were not solely responsible for the attacks
have a lively following on the Internet, including on YouTube, but the second
episode of “Rescue Me’s” fifth season, starting in April,
may represent the first fictional presentation of 9/11 conspiracy theories by
a mainstream media company (FX is operated by the News Corporation).
“They’re not discussed a lot in the press,” Daniel Sunjata,
the actor who plays Franco Rivera on “Rescue Me,” told reporters
at a television press tour last month. He predicted that the episode would be
In the episode, Mr. Sunjata’s character delivers a two-minute monologue
for a French journalist describing a “neoconservative government effort”
to control the world’s oil, drastically increase military spending and
“change the definition of pre-emptive attack.” To put it into action,
he continues, “what you need is a new Pearl Harbor. That’s what
they said they needed.”
Mr. Sunjata surprised some of the TV reporters when he said that he “absolutely,
100 percent” supports the assertion that “9/11 was an inside job.”
The alternative theories “seem to me to make a lot more sense than the
ones that are popularly espoused,”… Continue reading
By Greg Miller, Washington Bureau
January 31, 2009
WASHINGTON — The CIA’s secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation
techniques are off-limits. And Guantánamo Bay will eventually go back to being
a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.
But even while dismantling these discredited programs, President Barack Obama
left an equally controversial counterterrorism tool intact.
Under executive orders issued by Obama last week, the CIA still has authority
to carry out what are known as renditions, or the secret abductions and transfers
of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the U.S.
Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said the rendition program is
poised to play an expanded role because it is the main remaining mechanism–aside
from Predator missile strikes–for taking suspected terrorists off the
The rendition program became a source of embarrassment for the CIA, and a target
of international scorn, as details emerged in recent years of botched captures,
mistaken identities and allegations that prisoners were turned over to countries
where they were tortured.
The European Parliament condemned renditions as an “illegal instrument
used by the United States.” Prisoners swept up in the program have sued
the CIA as well as a subsidiary of Boeing Corp., which is accused of working
with the agency on dozens of rendition flights.
But the Obama administration appears to have determined that the rendition
program was one component of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism that
it could not afford to discard.
The decision underscores the fact that… Continue reading
Stephen C. Webster
A career Army officer who survived the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, claims that no evacuation was ordered inside the Pentagon, despite flight controllers calling in warnings of approaching hijacked aircraft nearly 20 minutes before the building was struck.
According to a time-line of the attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration notified NORAD that American Airlines Flight 77 had been hijacked at 9:24 a.m. The Pentagon was not struck until 9:43 a.m.
On behalf of retired Army officer April Gallop, California attorney William Veale has filed a civil suit against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and former US Air Force General Richard Myers, who was acting chairman of the joint chiefs on 9/11. It alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks and purposefully failed to warn those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred.
“The ex-G.I. plaintiff alleges she has been denied government support since then, because she raised ‘painful questions’ about the inexplicable failure of military defenses at the Pentagon that day, and especially the failure of officials to warn and evacuate the occupants of the building when they knew the attack was imminent” said Veale in a media advisory.
Gallop also says she heard two loud explosions, and does not believe that a Boeing 757 hit the building. Her son sustained a serious brain injury, and Gallop herself was knocked unconscious after the roof collapsed onto her office.
The suit also named… Continue reading
On October 27, 2008, WeAreChangeLA’s Jeremy Rothe-Kushel was on hand to cover an event with William Bratton, the Chief of the LAPD. Bratton was at a Townhall LA event at the Omni Hotel in Downtown LA to give a talk entitled “Crime and Your Bottom Line.” Although Bratton was there to focus on the future of the LAPD in relationship to development and crime-prevention, there was still a media buzz humming about an article Bratton had penned a week earlier with ‘terrorism expert’ R.P. Eddy in the NY Daily News. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/10/21/2008-10-21_osama_bin_lade…
The article, entitled “Osama Bin Laden wants a vote, so beware a late October surprise,” warned that if “Bin Laden wants to engineer a late-October surprise in 2008, an attack on a significant American economic target may be one of the most tempting opportunities he has had in recent years.” In addition to asserting that “U.S. intelligence is worried” because a “2007 National Intelligence Estimate said that Al Qaeda has reconstituted and may again be capable of hitting the U.S. mainland,” the article also claimed that “Bin Laden may have already begun to weigh in on our coming elections,” because in September, “Al Qaeda launched an assault against the American Embassy in Yemen.”
Bratton, who had worked under Rudolph Giuliani at the helm of NYPD in the 90′s pursuing the “broken windows” policy, became LAPD Police Chief in 2002. He came to the LAPD directly out of a strong working relationship with Kroll Inc. (see: http://fluxrostrum.blogspot.com/2007/05/who-killed-john-oneil.html… Continue reading
November 21, 2008
By William Glaberson
New York Times
A federal judge issued the Bush administration a sharp setback on Thursday, ruling that five Algerian men have been held unlawfully at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp for nearly seven years and ordering their release.
It was the first hearing on the government’s evidence for holding detainees at Guantánamo. The judge, Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court in Washington, said the government’s secret evidence in the case had been weak: what he described as “a classified document from an unnamed source” for its central claim against the men, with little way to measure credibility.
“To rest on so thin a reed would be inconsistent with this court’s obligation,” Judge Leon said. He urged the government not to appeal and said the men should be released “forthwith.”
The habeas corpus case was an important test of the administration’s detention policies, which critics have long argued swept up innocent men and low-level foot soldiers along with hardened fighters and terrorist commanders.
The judge also ruled that a sixth Algerian man was being lawfully detained because he was a facilitator for Al Qaeda, arranging travel for others to fight the United States, and planned to become a fighter himself.
The six men are among a group of Guantánamo inmates who won a 5-to-4 Supreme Court ruling in June that the detainees had a constitutional right to seek their release in federal court. The decision said a 2006 law unconstitutionally stripped them of their right to contest their imprisonment in habeas corpus lawsuits.…Continue reading
© Diana Ralph, Ph.D.Abstract
The 9-11 attacks were the pretext which sold the myth of evil Muslim terrorists imminently threatening Americans. That tale allowed the Cheney-led members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) to implement their 1990 DPG plan for world control. The “war on terror” has nothing to do with protecting the U.S. and world’s people from “terrorists”, and everything to do with securing the American empire abroad and muzzling democracy and human rights at home. Designed to inspire popular support for U.S. wars of world conquest, it is modeled on Islamophobic stereotypes, policies, and political structures developed by the Israeli Likkud and Bush Sr. since 1979. To defeat this plan, we must overcome our Islamophobic fear of “terrorists” and stand in solidarity with Muslims.
1. Why a 9-11 Pretext?
by Jon Gold
Latest Update 11/08/08
Thanks to www.historycommons.org, DHS, and simuvac. This is dedicated to the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Before I begin, I would like to say that theorizing about what happened on 9/11, when you’re not being given answers to your questions about that day by the people who SHOULD be able to do so, is PERFECTLY normal. As is suspecting that the reason these answers aren’t being given is “sinister” in nature. As Ray McGovern said, “for people to dismiss these questioners as “conspiratorial advocates”, or “conspiratorial theorists”… that’s completely out of line because the… The questions remain because the President who should be able to answer them, WILL NOT.” When you think about everything this Administration has done in almost 8 years, the idea that they might not be giving us the answers we seek because of something “sinister” is not crazy. In fact, it’s the most logical conclusion one can come to at this point. After seven plus years of obfuscation, spin, lies, and cover-ups regarding the 9/11 attacks, it is unavoidable to think that criminal complicity is the reason why.
That being said, we have not proven it beyond the shadow of doubt. We do not have documentation that shows they planned it. We do not have a signed confession from someone. We have pieces of the puzzle, and to most of us that have been doing this a long time, those pieces point to more than just Osama Bin Laden,… Continue reading
First, a comment from GeorgeWashington’s Blogspot:
I’ve previously pointed out that the U.S. government heard the 9/11 plans from the hijackers’ own mouths. Most of what I wrote about involved the NSA and other intelligence services tapping top Al Qaeda operatives’ phone calls outside the U.S.
However, it turns out that the NSA was also tapping the hijackers’ phone calls inside the U.S.
Specifically, hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi lived in San Diego, California, for 2 years before 9/11. Numerous phone calls between al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi in San Diego and a high-level Al Qaeda operations base in Yemen were made in those 2 years.
The NSA had been tapping and eavesdropping on all calls made from that Yemen phone for years. So NSA recorded all of these phone calls. Indeed, the CIA knew as far back as 1999 that al-Mihdhar was coming to the U.S. Specifically, in 1999, CIA operatives tailing al-Mihdhar in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, obtained a copy of his passport. It contained visas for both Malaysia and the U.S., so they knew it was likely he would go from Kuala Lumpur to America.
The above information comes from James Bamford, the Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings for almost a decade – where he won a number of journalism awards for his coverage national security issues – whose articles have appeared in dozens of publications, including cover stories for the New York Times Magazine, Washington Post Magazine, and the Los Angeles Times Magazine, and is the only author to write any books (he wrote three) on the NSA.…Continue reading
This is a news item pertaining to the Complete 911 Timeline investigative project, one of several grassroots investigations being hosted on the History Commons website. The
data published as part of this investigation has been collected, organized, and published by members of the public who are registered users of this website.
9/28/2008: Pentagon on 9/11, Shoe Bombing, Bin Laden in the Soviet-Afghan War and More – Additions as of September 28, 2008
This week, a massive amount of new entries have been added to the timeline, dealing with a whole range of different issues. We will start with the day of 9/11, in particular the Pentagon, which a fire chief warned could be a target nearly 20 minutes before it was hit. The attack itself created confusion by setting off 300 fire alarms, although some medical workers thought the ensuing evacuation was a drill. After wandering about outside the building, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld refused to follow the established emergency plan and evacuate, instead sending deputy Paul Wolfowitz to an alternate military command center, where the computers and communication systems did not work.
The first fighter was seen arriving over the Pentagon at around 10:40 a.m., the FAA sent the White House incorrect details of the hijacked planes in the early afternoon, and astronauts viewed the devastation in New York from space. Meanwhile, the FBI established a command post near the Pentagon and limited the evidence that needed to be photographed there.
The… Continue reading
September 11, 2008
Middle East Media Research Institute Special Dispatch
In an article in the Syrian government daily Teshreen, former Syrian information
minister Dr. Mahdi Dakhlallah wrote that the U.S. intelligence agencies were
behind the 9/11 attacks, and that their aim in this was to pave the way for
implementing a previously readied plan to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
Following is a translation of the main points of Dakhlallah’s article.
“On the Seventh Anniversary of 9/11, The Truth is Still Not Unequivocal,
And the Mystery Remains”
“On the seventh anniversary of the September 11 events, the truth is still
not unequivocal, and the mystery remains. The immediate and simple explanation
according to the official version of the events is, to this day, the object
of criticism and sometimes even of derision.
“The world may have to wait 25 years for the truth to come to light and
for the secret documents and information about what happened to be presented.
But who cares about the truth?
“What is important, always, is the use of the events in order to carry
out a strategy planned in advance – which raises the possibility that the injured
party itself carried out the deed, especially if the matter concerns a country
with great strategic interests such as the U.S.
“Many are the instances of violence and terror in the land of Uncle Sam,
and no one knows what is behind them. Who killed President Kennedy? To date,
no one knows the truth. Who is behind… Continue reading
14th September 2008
DailyMail.co.uk – Peter Hitchens’ Mail on Sunday column
There is no such organisation as ‘Al Qaeda’. The spooks know this, Cabinet Ministers know this and so do the ‘security correspondents’ who so readily trot out the spooks’ point of view on our broadcasting networks.
Of course, there are terrorists, and there are also fantasists, fanatics, low-lifes and camp followers who plot and attempt horrible things. Some of them even call themselves ‘Al Qaeda’ these days because they have learned that this is a good way to scare us.
But, while they are a menace, they are not as big or as organised a menace as the Government likes to make out.
The State and the vainglorious bureaucrats of the ‘security’ services need to pretend that the terrorists are a tightly organised and terrifying threat, to make themselves look big as well — and to help them get hold of new powers to snoop on us and push us around.
Some of you may remember the rather squalid behaviour, back in the summer of 2006, by the then Home Secretary, the unrepentant ex-communist brute John Reid.
Lightly tossing aside the wise tradition that in free countries Ministers stay out of criminal justice matters, he reeled out a boastful, alarmist statement about some arrests of alleged terrorists, using words so preju-dicial that I will not reproduce them here.
When, two years later, a jury was unconvinced by many of the claims made by the authorities in this… Continue reading
Reuters North American News Service
Sep 10, 2008 08:28 EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, there is no
consensus outside the United States that Islamist militants from al Qaeda were
responsible, according to an international poll published Wednesday.
The survey of 16,063 people in 17 nations found majorities in only nine countries
believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York and Washington that killed
about 3,000 people in 2001.
U.S. officials squarely blame al Qaeda, whose leader Osama bin Laden has boasted
of organizing the suicide attacks by his followers using hijacked commercial
On average, 46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15
percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some
other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind
The poll was conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project of
research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International
Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland in the United States.
In Europe, al Qaeda was cited by 56 percent of Britons and Italians, 63 percent
of French and 64 percent of Germans. The U.S. government was to blame, according
to 23 percent of Germans and 15 percent of Italians.
Respondents in the Middle East were especially likely to name a perpetrator
other than al Qaeda, the poll found.
Israel was behind the attacks, said 43 percent of people in Egypt, 31 percent
in… Continue reading
by Jeffrey Feldman
Posted September 5, 2008
Last night, while Americans sat quietly expecting to watch a video ‘tribute’
to victims of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001–John McCain took
advantage of America’s good will to show a video falsely linking Iran to the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
At 9:11pm (CST), the MSNBC coverage cut to a video being projected onto the
main screen at the RNC. At that point, Tom Brokaw introduced the video as follows:
Tom Brokaw: OK, let’s go now, Keith, if we can, down to the floor. We want
to share with our viewers the ‘Tribute To The Victims of 9/11.’
So, that was the introduction the networks gave to the video–no doubt lifted
from a press release given to them by the RNC. Normal practice, I suppose. But
here is the astoundingly immoral thing that happened next, rather than show
a video ‘tribute’ to the victims of 9/11, the McCain team showed a video ‘history’
of 9/11 that began like this:
(Fade to black as ominous slow piano music plays)
(Fade in: iconic image of Iranian revolutionaries from the late 1970s holding
Narrator: The first attack occured in Iran.
(MSNBC feed now shows picture of Iranian hostage crisis with title ’9/11
Narrator: 444 days–America held hostage.
(Cut to: image of 1998 Al Qaeda bombings of Kenya and Somalia)
Narrator: Then again.
(Cut to: second image of 1998 Al Qaeda bombing of Kenya and Somalia)
Narrator: And again.… Continue reading
August 30, 2008
by John Byrne
As the nation focuses on Sen. John McCain’s choice of running mate, President
Bush has quietly moved to expand the reach of presidential power by ensuring
that America remains in a state of permanent war.
Buried in a recent proposal by the Administration is a sentence that has received
scant attention — and was buried itself in the very newspaper that exposed
it Saturday. It is an affirmation that the United States remains at war with
al Qaeda, the Taliban and "associated organizations."
Part of a proposal for Guantánamo Bay legal detainees, the provision before
Congress seeks to “acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains
engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations,
who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated
to the slaughter of Americans.”
The New York Times‘ page 8 placement of the article in its Saturday
edition seems to downplay its importance. Such a re-affirmation of war carries
broad legal implications that could imperil Americans’ civil liberties and the
rights of foreign nationals for decades to come.
It was under the guise of war that President Bush claimed a legal mandate for
his warrantless wiretapping program, giving the National Security Agency power
to intercept calls Americans made abroad. More of this program has emerged in
recent years, and it includes the surveillance of Americans’ information and
"War powers" have also given President Bush cover to hold… Continue reading
By Mark H. Gaffney
The following is an excerpt from Mark H. Gaffney’s forthcoming book, THE 911 MYSTERY PLANE AND THE VANISHING OF AMERICA, to be released in September 2008.
15/08/08 “ICH” — Regrettably, there is considerable evidence that elements of the Bush administration were complicit in the 9/11 attack, and may even have helped stage it. Let us now examine some of what I regard as the most compelling evidence. However, the following discussion makes no claim to be comprehensive.
We know that within minutes of the “worst terrorist attack” in US history, even before the collapse of WTC-2 at 9:59 am, US officials knew the names of several of the alleged hijackers. CBS reported that a flight attendant on AA Flight 11, Amy Sweeney, had the presence of mind to call her office and reveal the seat numbers of the hijackers who had seized the plane. FBI Director Robert Mueller later said, “This was the first piece of hard evidence.” In his memoirs CIA Director George Tenet emphasizes the importance of the passenger manifests, as does counter-terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke. All of which is very strange because the manifests later released by the airlines do not include the names of any of the alleged hijackers. Nor has this discrepancy ever been explained.
According to MSNBC, the plan to invade Afghanistan and “remove Al Qaeda from the face of he earth” was already sitting on G.W. Bush’s desk on the morning of 9/11 awaiting his signature. The plan, in the form of a presidential directive, had been developed by the CIA and according to Richard Clarke called for “arming the Northern Alliance…to go on the offensive against the Taliban [and] pressing the CIA to…go after bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership.”
A former Pakistani diplomat, Niaz Naik, tells virtually the same story.…Continue reading