Next | TOP | Prev


Domestic Terrorism: The Big Lie
The "War" On Terrorism is a Total Fabrication

The government's explanation of precisely who is the enemy has never been buttressed with facts that would stand up in a court of law. In the 2002 edition of his book The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Could The U.S. War On Terrorism Go Nuclear? Professor Francis Boyle describes how "the accounts provided by the United States government [of those responsible for the 9-11 bombings] simply do not add up."

The Facts

The October 3 edition of the New York Times recounted the definitive briefing by a US ambassador to NATO officials on the alleged facts as follows:

One Western official at NATO said the briefings, which were oral, without slides or documents, did not report any direct order from Mr. Bin Laden, nor did they indicate that the Taliban knew about the attacks before they happened.

A senior diplomat for one closely allied nation characterized the briefing as containing "nothing particularly new or surprising," adding: "It was rather descriptive and narrative rather then forensic. There was no attempt to build a legal case."

In other words, there was no real case against Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Such was the conclusion of senior diplomats from friendly nations who attended the so-called briefing.

The Powell/Blair White Paper

Secretary of State Colin Powell publicly promised that they were going to produce a "White Paper" documenting their case against Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization concerning September 11. . . . What happened here? We never received a "White Paper" produced by the Untied States government as publicly promised by Secretary Powell, who was later overridden by President Bush Jr. What we got instead was a so-called White Paper produced by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Obviously, Blair was acting as Bush Jr's surrogate . . . -- neither an elected or administrative official of the U.S. government, not even an American citizen. Conveniently, no American could be brought to task for or even questioned about whatever errors of inadequacies Blair might purvey.

The Powell/Blair White Paper fell into that hallowed tradition of a "White Paper" based upon insinuation, allegation, rumors, propaganda, lies, half-truths, etc. Even unnamed British government officials on an off-the-record basis admitted that the case against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda would not stand up in court. And as a matter of fact the Blair/Powell White Paper was widely derided in the British news media. There was nothing there.

[Note that the preamble to this white paper -- "Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States," 10/4/01 -- explicitly confirms Professor Boyle's assertion:

    "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law. Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources. But on the basis of all the information available HMG is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document."    --DTR]

The Cover-Ups

Despite the clear import of the matter, the U.S. Congress has decided not to empanel a Joint Committee of the House and of the Senate with subpoena power giving them access to whatever hard evidence they want throughout any agency of the United States government -- including the National Security Council, FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA -- and also to put their Officials under oath to testify as to what happened and why under penalty of perjury. Obviously a cover-up is underway for the express purpose of not determining (1) who was ultimately responsible for the terrible attacks of 11 September 2001; and (2) why these extravagantly funded U.S. "intelligence" agencies were either unable or unwilling to prevent these attacks despite numerous warnings of a serious anti-American attack throughout the Summer of 2001 -- and yet, amazingly, could assert the identity of those responsible with such certainty in the space of hours thereafter as to preclude any serious investigation of other possible perpetrators. And for reasons not necessary to get into here, there is also an ongoing governmental cover-up of the obvious involvement of the Pentagon/CIA, or one of their contractors, in the anthrax attack upon the American People and all three Branches of the U.S. Federal Government.[61]

In what follows, be mindful of the fundamental contradictions that misrepresent the very foundations of Bush II's purported "war" on terrorism. Our U.S. intelligence agencies, funded annually for decades with increasingly extravagant budgets, claim they were unable to prevent the 9-11 bombings due to the lack of correlated intelligence gathered. Yet within the span of less than a day, these same agencies asserted the identity of those responsible with such certainty as to preclude any serious investigation of other possible perpetrators. Whose interests are truly served by such investigations and their near instantaneous conclusions?

How quickly the devils of yesterday become the discarded wraiths of today. A story by Reuters on August 20th described the current status of America's "Enemy Number One": "Bin Laden: from `Evil One' to Unmentionable One[62]. What is the significance of bin Laden being reduced to an unmentionable status by government officials when less than a year ago his alleged presence in Afghanistan caused such massive firepower to be targeted where at least 3,767 innocent people were killed there by U.S. bombs between October and December? [63] Again, as taxpaying supporters of the United States second-to-none military, how do we reconcile our complicity in these deaths of innocents with the innocents who were killed one year ago in New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania? When will enough people have been killed that more not need to be sacrificed on the altar of such justice?

Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa, is the editor of the Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG).[64] He and others have written extensively on the interconnecting dimensions of what occurred before, during, and after the September 11th bombings and what these crimes against humanity have initiated. The CRG "is an independent research and media group of progressive writers, scholars and activists committed to curbing the tide of [corporate] `globalisation' and `disarming' the New World Order. The CRG webpage at based in Montréal publishes news articles, commentary, background research and analysis on a broad range of issues, focusing on the interrelationship between social, economic, strategic, geopolitical and environmental processes." [65]

One of the areas relevant to the purported culpability of Osama bin Laden includes CRG-published articles detailing the long-time associations between the "ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" (ISI is Pakistan's Military Intelligence) and the U.S. intelligence community, State Department and other federal agencies. Numerous sources substantiate these facts. In light of such research, one is left to deconstruct the purpose of the misrepresentations U.S. officials in the Pentagon and Bush II administration presented within hours after the bombings -- without supporting evidence -- that "Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organisation were prime suspects."

"Corroborated by the House of Representatives International Relations Committee, US support funneled through the ISI to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden has been a consistent policy of the US Administration since the end of the Cold War:

``. . . [T]he United States has been part and parcel to supporting the Taliban all along, and still is let me add . . . You have a military government [of President Musharraf] in Pakistan now that is arming the Taliban to the teeth. . . . Let me note; that [US] aid has always gone to Taliban areas . . . We have been supporting the Taliban, because all our aid goes to the Taliban areas. And when people from the outside try to put aid into areas not controlled by the Taliban, they are thwarted by our own State Department . . . At that same moment, Pakistan initiated a major resupply effort, which eventually saw the defeat, and caused the defeat, of almost all of the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan.'' (US House of Representatives: Statement by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, Hearing of The House International Relations Committee on "Global Terrorism And South Asia", Washington, July 12, 2000.)

"The existence of an "ISI-Osama-Taliban axis" is a matter of public record. The links between the ISI and agencies of the US government including the CIA are also a matter of public record." [66]

The Clinton Administration supported what has been called the "Militant Islamic Network". A 1997 Congressional report provides evidence from official sources of the links between the Islamic Jihad and the US government.[67] In "Who Is Osama Bin Laden?" Chossudovsky outlines the history of Osama Bin Laden and the links of the Islamic "Jihad" to the formulation of US foreign policy during the Cold War and its aftermath.[68] In "OSAMAGATE" he describes how the main justification for the war we are now committed to has been totally fabricated.

"`Now the Taliban will pay a price' vowed President George W. Bush, as American and British fighter planes unleashed missile attacks against major cities in Afghanistan. The US Administration claims that Osama bin Laden is behind the tragic events of the 11th of September. A major war supposedly "against international terrorism" has been launched, yet the evidence amply confirms that agencies of the US government have since the Cold War harbored the "Islamic Militant Network" as part of Washington's foreign policy agenda. In a bitter irony, the US Air Force is targeting the training camps established in the 1980s by the CIA.

"The main justification for waging this war has been totally fabricated. The American people have been deliberately and consciously misled by their government into supporting a major military adventure which affects our collective future." [69]

The consistently echoed claim of how 9-11 was the result of a massive U.S. `intelligence failure' is especially significant given the fact that "on the morning of September 11, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged `money-man' behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees."

"The media's spotlight on `foreknowledge' and so-called `FBI lapses' served to distract public attention from the broader issue of political deception. Not a word was mentioned concerning the role of the CIA, which throughout the entire post-Cold War era, has aided and abetted Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, as part of its covert operations.

"Of course they knew! The foreknowledge issue is a red herring. The `Islamic Brigades' are a creation of the CIA. In standard CIA jargon, Al Qaeda is categorized as an `intelligence asset'. Support to terrorist organizations is an integral part of U.S. foreign policy. Al Qaeda continues to this date (2002) to participate in CIA covert operations in different parts of the World.[2] These `CIA-Osama links' do not belong to a bygone era, as suggested by the mainstream media.

"The U.S. Congress has documented in detail, the links of Al Qaeda to agencies of the U.S. government during the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as in Kosovo.[3] More recently in Macedonia, barely a few months before September 11, U.S. military advisers were mingling with Mujahideen mercenaries financed by Al Qaeda. Both groups were fighting under the auspices of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), within the same terrorist paramilitary formation.[4]

"The CIA keeps track of its `intelligence assets'. Amply documented, Osama bin Laden's whereabouts were always known.[5] Al Qaeda is infiltrated by the CIA.[6] In other words, there were no `intelligence failures'! In the nature of a well-led intelligence operation, the `intelligence asset' operates (wittingly or unwittingly) with some degree of autonomy, in relation to its U.S. government sponsors, but ultimately it acts consistently, in the interests of Uncle Sam.

"While individual FBI agents are often unaware of the CIA's role, the relationship between the CIA and Al Qaeda is known at the top levels of the FBI. Members of the Bush Administration and the U.S. Congress are fully cognizant of these links.

"The foreknowledge issue focusing on `FBI lapses' is an obvious smokescreen. While the whistleblowers serve to underscore the weaknesses of the FBI, the role of successive U.S. administrations (since the presidency of Jimmy Carter) in support of the `Islamic Militant Base', is simply not mentioned.

". . .

"In a bitter irony, Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham, -- the men who hosted the mysterious September 11 breakfast meeting with the alleged `hijacker's high commander' (to use the FBI's expression), had been put in charge of the investigation and public hearings on so-called `intelligence failures'." [70]

  1. There are numerous documents, which prove beyond doubt the links between Al Qaeda and successive U.S. administrations. See Centre for Research on Globalisation, Foreknowledge of 9-11: Compilation of key articles and documents,, May 2002, section 3.

  2. U.S. Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, Republican Party Committee, Congressional Press Release, Congress, 16 January 1997, See also Michel Chossudovsky, `Osamagate', Centre for Research on Globalisation,, 9 October 2001.

  3. See Centre for Research on Globalisation, Foreknowledge of 9-11: Compilation of key articles and documents, op. cit. section 3. See articles by Isabel Vincent, George Szamuely, Scott Taylor, Marina Domazetovska, Michel Chossudovsky, Umberto Pascali, Lara Marlowe and Macedonian dailies.

  4. See "Bin Laden Whereabouts Before 9-11," CBS Evening News with Dan Rather; CBS, 28 January 2002, Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) and Alexandra Richard, "The CIA met bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai," Le Figaro. .

  5. The Boston Globe, 5 June 2002.

How can Senator Bob Graham, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, be expected to exert any constitutionally meaningful oversight of the murky world and dealings of the U.S. intelligence community (and its relations to the equivalent in other governments), if he was having breakfast on 9-11 with the alleged money-man behind the 9-11 hijackers? [71]

A May 5th CNN story is an example of the shell-games played in the press: the focus here is on bin Laden's connection to "Arab students taking aviation lessons."

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. authorities failed to recognize clues before September 11th about a potential terrorist attack, including an internal FBI memo that questioned whether Osama bin Laden was behind Arab students taking aviation lessons in the Unied States, a key Senate leader said Wednesday.

"In an interview with CNN, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham, D-Florida, said the House and Senate intelligence panels will hold hearings soon about various memos and reports, including one dubbed the Phoenix document, written by an FBI agent last summer.

"A key question, Graham said, would be `why these dots weren't seen and connected. . . . We failed to put the puzzle together before the horrific event.'" [72]

Either Senator Bob Graham is aware of General Mahmoud Ahmad's relationship to Mohammed Atta and is complicit with foreknowledge of the 9-11 bombings, or he is ignorant of this and is incompetent.

Controlling the scope and limits of official investigations in the House and the Senate to minimized exposure of sensitive history is nothing new. It happened with the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in the late 1970s and with Iran Contra in the late 1980s.[73] John Judge, one of the cofounders of the National Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA), a network of independent researchers and investigators into the John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King assassinations,[74] has written extensively on the events of September 11th. In May he commented on the story of national security advisor Rice opposing a public panel to investigate 9-11.

"They want to contain it to the House and Senate intelligence committees which they control. Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla), chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, a longtime secrecy advocate . . . was actually promoted to run by Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Two boys from the state that brought us the current unelected President in the first place. The heads of these committees are traditionally awarded medals by the CIA for their `services'.

"Past committees (Church, Pike) at all critical of the intelligence agencies are now fingered for the failures of 9-11 for supposedly taking away their ability to function. But intelligence gathering was never challenged or defunded, only intelligence activities, which were often illegal, unconstitutional and ill-advised." [75]

A Washington Post article in July describing an "Independent 9-11 Commission Gaining Ground" prompted Judge's observation that the only kind of investigation that might succeed in this situation would be one that exists outside the U.S. government.

"After living through the politicized debacle of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and even the Church Committee and the Ervin Committee attempts to get at the truth about intelligence dirty tricks, I have come to the conclusion that, like the Rockefeller Commission, it is mostly a case of asking the intelligence agencies to contemplate their own navels.

"Not only are the oversight committees well-larded with [people like] Inouye and now those two stellar Floridians Bob Graham and Porter Goss (all of whom have gotten medals of commendation from the CIA itself), I don't think it is possible to use them to get at much of anything. They never do a full blown investigation, and if one starts to get close to the truth it is dismantled like the HSCA was, and put under control of the cover artists. They define the investigation at the start so narrowly it will never see the iceberg below the tip, and they go into closed session when anything really matters.

"We are better off now calling for an independent Truth Commission outside the government. It has been amusing to watch the debate over using a Presidentially appointed blue-ribbon commission (like the Warren Commission) -- which was opposed by Senator Arlen Spector, who must know their shortcomings after inventing the single-bullet theory on JFK to get them out of their collision with the facts.

"Recently I heard Senator Lieberman talking about this `independent, bipartisan' Congressional investigation in front of a rally of the victims' families who only want the truth not the government payoff. He said at one point that `security is the basis of all our other liberties'. He has it exactly backwards." [76]

The claim that "security is the basis of all our other liberties" reminds us once more of Benjamin Franklin's assertion that those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither. Prompted by the dimensions of "Unresolved issues that need to be investigated" articulated on the Cooperative Research website, Judge reminds us of our ignored history providing necessary context to the United States involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980s as well as tie-ins to officials indicted during Iran Contra many of whom are now in positions of significant power in Bush II.

"More grist for the mill. Sources on Pakistani ISI head Mahmud Ahmad visiting US officials and wiring money to Mohammed Atta. Also meeting with Armitage, and Senators Graham, Biden and Rep. Goss, who are the `investigators'.[1, 2, 3] Also information on another ISI operative using opium profits to fund covert operations.

"CIA's William Casey ran the Mujehaddin covert war against the Soviet union using the same funding methods. The opium production continues to date. Armitage was part of the Afghanistan operation, very close to it, and well known in Pakistan as well. Armitage was a Congtragate figure, close to North. Contragate was also an off-the-shelf drug-financed operation run by Casey.

"The Contragaters are back in high official positions running this new game. Poindexter is now in charge of data mining computers and phone tapping; [1, 2, 3] Colin Powell moved the TOW missiles through Israel for sale to Iran at bargain prices; and Otto Reich and others were involved in the dirty Contra war (also drug financed). They are back in position now, with the same old agenda for control.

"North was behind destroying detente with the `evil empire' USSR via KAL 007, he was the liason of the DOD to FEMA for martial law planning (a fact that had to go into `closed committee' during the investigation and came out being falsely denied), and North was behind the phony terrorism scenarios of the 80s, using Abu Nidal as the threat (recently `suicided') while North's company was selling Nidal arms.

"Does it then make sense of the fact that Mohammed Atta was living in Sarasota, Florida with one of the Contragate pilots? Is this just Casey's unfinished legacy come to haunt us, using the same methods and even the same personnel in a new and improved scam? BCCI money floats around these same operations and Saudi billions. There is more work to be done to get at the bottom of all this." [77]

In addition to the central question of who directed and was responsible for the airliner bombings of 9/11, when did the planning and preparation for the so-called war on terrorism actually occur? A great deal of data exists concerning the creation of favorable conditions for U.S. oil corporations to operate in central Asia. In 1997 Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote The Grand Chessboard -- American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives asserting "it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book."

In 1998 John Maresca, Vice President, International Relations Unocal Corporation, testified before the House Committee On International Relations Subcommittee On Asia And The Pacific on three issues concerning Central Asia oil and gas reserves: "The need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas. The need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements within Russia, other newly independent states and in Afghanistan. The need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region."

A 1999 RAND Corporation book, Countering the New Terrorism contains elements of the blueprint that has been openly embraced by Bush II since 9/11. News stories in the summer of 2001 indicate detailed planning for military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan to "take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest."

A report commissioned by former US Secretary of State James Baker entitled "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century," and sponsored by Rice University and the Council on Foreign Relations, was submitted to Cheney in April 2001. It argues that "the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma," with one of the "consequences" being a "need for military intervention" to secure its oil supply.

Cheney was the president of Halliburton, an oil services industry provider. For nearly a decade, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice worked with Chevron, while Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans was CEO of Tom Brown, Inc, Denver-based oil and gas company. Many US officials now working on Bush II's Afghanistan policy also have extensive backgrounds in the world of multinational oil giants. A list of concentrated sources and key articles [78] provide details about the pre-9/11 advance planning and preparation for the so-called war on terrorism. Exploration of the background of the call for an American global imperium prior to 9/11 is included in the Official 9-11 Misrepresentations section.

The facts and context of our secret, buried, or ignored history, are there: each of us can contribute our share of getting to the bottom of all this. Through omission as well as dissembling and deception, the context is woefully lacking. Ignoring that our elected and non-elected members of government would consciously and intentionally lie denies the lessons of history and of human nature. Where is the conflict-of-interest more heightened than at the seat of political power, within the biggest superpower on earth? The Atomic Energy Commission lethal deceptions (1950s and 60s), U-2 incident (1960), Bay of Pigs (1961), JFK assassination (1963), Gulf of Tonkin Incident (1964), Martin Luther King assassination (1968), Robert Kennedy assassination (1968), Vietnam (1950s and 60s and 70s), Watergate (1972), overthrow of Chilean President Allende and his assassination (1973), Iran Contra (1980s), Looting of U.S. Savings and Loans Industry (1980s), Iraq-Iran war (1980s), Gulf War (1991), 2000 Presidential election . . . these events demonstrate how susceptible humans are to the corrupting influence of power and the belief that one's actions do not have to be publically accountable.

As paralyzing as the enormity of what is happening may feel, there is a wealth of sources on which one can focus that provides a wider range of world views, facts, context, and analysis of what is happening and what is at stake including (but not limited to) the following:

We are being told to accept an assemblage of facts that would not stand up in a court of law to prove the guilt of a man, bin Laden and his organization, that somehow succeeded in penetrating the most restricted airspace in the world approximately 55 minutes after the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center. These facts, while not sufficient to prevent the day that changed the world, nonetheless were more than sufficient to identify the culprit in less than the next 24 hours; who was then the justification for embarking on a war that, according to Dick Cheney, "may never end. At least, not in our lifetime" [79]; and who less than a year later has dropped off the world stage slowing down this lifetime war, on his behalf, not one iota. Whose interests are advanced by this monumental campaign to trade our liberty for security?

Next | TOP | Prev

back to CAH | ratville times | rat haus | Index | Search | tree