By Sander Hicks
In defense of the “9/11 truth movement.”
[Alternet] Editor’s note: The role of the alternative press is to offer perspectives that the commercial media won’t touch. Having run a number of articles critical of the “9/11 Truth Movement” by Matt Taibbi , Joshua Holland , Matthew Rothschild and others, we asked Sander Hicks, a prominent voice within the movement, to share his perspective. For more of Sanders’ views, see his book ” The Big Wedding: 9/11, The Whistle-Blowers, and the Cover-Up .”
No matter what you believe about who was responsible for 9/11, and how it went down, we’re all amazed at how much political capital the events of that day produced for this administration: A bipartisan consensus on torture; an era of permanent war; detentions without trial; “no fly” lists for activists; the Bill of Rights gone with the wind, and a cowed professional media willing to self-censor and suppress pertinent information. The 9/11 “America Attacked” story has distracted us from the natural outrage we should feel over illegal wiretaps, stolen elections, hundreds of billions of dollars missing at the Pentagon, war profiteering, Enron and Cheney’s secret energy policy.
But with Bush’s popularity… Continue reading
Concerned citizens urged to respond
by 10:30 AM EST, Tues, June 27, 2006
Posted on behalf of Bill Doyle
of 9/11 Families for a Secure America and
9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism
On June 6, 2006, the House of Representatives passed Section 525 of H.R. 5441 in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. Section 525 includes language directing the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to exercise more restraint and responsibility when classifying documents as “Sensitive Security Information” (SSI), which can then be protected from public disclosure. The Senate is now preparing to also vote on Section 525 and the TSA is strongly opposing this language as unwanted interference in its internal affairs.
Without the language, TSA will no doubt continue to classify many documents that are not rightfully entitled to official secrecy. Indeed, the TSA has been repeatedly warned by Congress, federal judges, and many others that it was abusing its classification authority and asked to cease and desist. This language in Section 525 is necessary to push the TSA to exercise its authority responsibly both to protect the nation’s transportation system and to allow Americans and the Congress to fully participate in that protection and ensure that the TSA is actually doing its job.
The TSA maintains that Section 525 will handicap national security and that it must be allowed to resolve its own self-admitted problems administratively, rather than letting Congress legislate solutions. However, the House carefully drafted the provision to minimize arbitrary burdens on the TSA, but still… Continue reading
By Eric Lipton
New York Times
June 18, 2006
The pervasive public fear ignited by 9/11 and relentlessly fanned by government leaders and the mainstream media has proved an unfailing political profit center for the administration and unimaginably enriched its military-industrial handlers. It is now also enwealthening scores of officials personally as “War on Terror”-profiteering accelerates the fusion of our private and public spheres.
WASHINGTON – Dozens of members of the Bush administration’s domestic security team, assembled after the 2001 terrorist attacks, are now collecting bigger paychecks in different roles: working on behalf of companies that sell domestic security products, many directly to the federal agencies the officials once helped run.
At least 90 officials at the Department of Homeland Security or the White House Office of Homeland Security – including the department’s former secretary, Tom Ridge; the former deputy secretary, Adm. James M. Loy; and the former under secretary, Asa Hutchinson – are executives, consultants or lobbyists for companies that collectively do billions of dollars’ worth of domestic security business.
More than two-thirds of the department’s most senior executives in its first years have moved through the revolving door. That pattern raises questions for some former officials.
“People have a right to make a living,” said Clark Kent Ervin, the former inspector general of the department, who now works at the Aspen Institute, a nonpartisan public policy research center. “But working virtually immediately for a company that is bidding for work in an area where you were… Continue reading