From September 2001, the U.S. administration's position was clear: ˝ Osama Bin Laden is our culprit, we will go and look for where we want to, and countries that oppose our methods will be considered an enemy . You're either with us or with the terrorists.
˝
quote in this connection the reaction of George Tenet, CIA director, when informed of the ongoing attacks. This one lunch time with David Boren, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee On the morning of 11 September. As reported by ABC News, after being informed that the first plane struck the World Trade Center, George Tenet asserted that ˝ to Boren it has all the fingerprints of bin Laden ˝ (W56).
Fairly fast as a deduction, while only one of four aircraft had reached its target.
We know what happened. Two or three weeks later, Afghanistan was invaded. Is it necessary to mention an invasion of this scale does not plan on such short notice? It is in this context, moreover, that the disagreement of the U.S. government to conduct a proper investigation formally becomes dissonant.
This is particularly true when we learn some interesting facts. For example, consider this excerpt from the February 2003 issue of the magazine Utne (Understanding The Next Evolution), published on the eve of the opening of investigations by the commission investigating the attacks.
"A member of the Committee of Inquiry [Tim Roemer] on 11 September 2001 attacks in New York and Washington said he will insist that the investigation be aggressive, ˝ ˝ large, including in particular Interviews with White House uncooperative. But how far will the Bush administration she prepared to work when the name of the president's brother pop up in conversation?
[...] Marvin P. Bush, younger brother of the president, was director of a company called Securacom, owner of the security contracts from the World Trade Center, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. The company was supported by KuwAm, an investment firm Kuwait-American who was among the members of his committee the same Marvin Bush.
since Securacom has changed its name to Stratesec but still supported financially by KuwAm. Marvin Bush, who did not respond to multiple requests for an interview for The American Reporter, no longer ranks among the employees of these companies and has been linked to any terrorist activity. According
Wayne Black, head of a security firm in Florida, it is somewhat unusual for a single firm to handle both the safety of an airline and an airport. It is also unusual for a firm that has ties so close with a foreign company to handle the security of an international airport as 'delicate' than Dulles. ˝ When you have a security contract, you know all the internal mechanisms ˝, "he said. ˝ ˝ Somebody knew somebody, "he added, ˝ otherwise the contract would have been considered more carefully ˝. [...]» M13
Thus, the president's brother was director of a company responsible for both the safety of Dulles Airport (where Flight 77 took off before crashing into the Pentagon ), United Airlines (Flights 93 and 175) and the World Trade Center.
What are the chances that the president's brother in power has served as director at a firm that held the key to all the security systems of companies listed among the wheels of the worst terrorist attack in history, and has been the weapon used (planes), through One of their points of origin (airport) to their main target (WTC)?
But the coincidences do not stop there in the Bush family. Continue with an excerpt from the British news agency Ananova mail, dated September 12, 2001.
"The cousin of President Bush should have been located on the World Trade Center when he was attacked.
Jim Pierce, managing director of AON Corporations, had planned a business conference on the 105th floor of the South Tower where its New York offices were located.
But the number of people in his group was too high and so they decided to move across the street at the Millennium Hotel.
Two hundred staff members of AON are missing.
Mr. Pierce told the television station KPRC-TV, Houston, Texas, he saw the explosion from the hotel.
˝ It would have been equally ˝ a nuclear explosion, "he says. ˝ They were gone in a second. It was a huge fireball that came down and reassembled. It literally rained metal and debris. We knew immediately that it was just below our offices. [...]» ˝ W73
Everyone is free to classify or not this anecdote in the industry by accident. It is also likely that the next report, published by the Royal Australian Navy News, receive the same treatment. This puts us in a situation where a war veteran Australian met U.S. President George W. Bush and his counterpart John Howard September 10, 2001 in Washington for a memorial ceremony of a Japanese attack from the Second World War.
"This September 10 in Washington, United States, while the survivor of the sunken vessel HMAS Canberra, Mackenzie Gregory, turns to Australian Prime Minister John Howard and said 'See you tomorrow at Arlington."
Without knowing it, Mr. Gregory was about to survive another event of historical significance - the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington the next day.
In addition, Mr. Gregory might have to thank the Prime Minister pour sa bonne étoile après qu’il eut originalement réservé une place à bord du vol 77 qui s’est écrasé sur le Pentagone le 11 septembre.
Le personnel de l’ambassade australienne a annulé sa réservation pour le vol 77 et a replanifié son vol pour qu’il coïncide avec la présence du premier ministre à une cérémonie de présentation de bouquet à Arlington. [...]» W111
Poursuivons dans cette lignée de coïncidences méconnues avec le prochain extrait.
Force est d’admettre que quiconque aura lu l’article intitulé Dark Heart of the American Dream, paru dans The Observer – célèbre British magazine associated with the Guardian Unlimited - will probably remained speechless following his latest sentence. Dealing exhaustively with the birth of the Bush family dynasty in the '50s, the article in question, often heavy and complex, stretching over a dozen pages to ultimately conclude on a note striking.
"[...] On 11 September, while Al Qaeda's planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group was holding a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests was a major investor: Shafig bin Laden, Osama's brother. "L5
In what way is it wonderful? You should know that the previous paragraphs had previously described the formation of the famous Carlyle Group, a private investment fund based in Washington and headed by Frank Carlucci, former CIA director, former defense secretary during the Reagan administration and always a friend of George Bush - the same Bush who was also director of the CIA and who was also on the committee of the group.
Put simply, the brother of Osama bin Laden was meeting with George HW Bush and other leading figures in the field U.S. intelligence even as the attacks unfolded.
But why do we preferred to wait until the very last sentence of this article endless to mention such a fact, that would without a doubt been the subject of an article in itself? Our media, usually eager for scoops and ready to move heaven and sea to cover the news, did not mention that just yet so therefore easily exploitable.
Consider also how the CBC, one of the few news channels have also dealt with history, attacked the subject. In an article entitled ˝ Conspiracy or coincidence? ˝, the national network for its Canadian entered directly into the heart of the matter.
"Is this a conspiracy or coincidence? There is a long and tangled history between the Bush family and the elite of Saudi Arabia.
It begins in the 70s in Houston, Texas, when George W. Bush was making his debut in both family businesses, or politics and oil. The powerful - and very rich - Bin Laden family helped to found his first company in the oil field.
The friendly relationship has been privileged then continued for decades. Following a terrorist attack on military installations in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 Americans, the bin Laden family received a contract worth several billion dollars to rebuild. And incredibly, George Bush Sr. was in a business meeting at the Ritz Carlton in Washington on the morning of September 11 with a brother of Osama bin Laden. L8 [...]»
CBC opted therefore turn to an approach diametrically opposite to the British Guardian, who had preferred to quietly drop the story at the end of an article specifically long. Canadian side, the approach was more direct, but it protects its rear but putting the story under the heading of conspiracies. What do we seek to accomplish by not directly addressing this issue with traditional journalistic coverage?
And speaking of the Bush family, mention in passing that Prescott Bush, father of George HW and grandfather of George W., has supported and benefited financially from the rise to power of Nazi Germany. Here is an excerpt from the British Guardian published September 25, 2004.
"[...] The grandfather of George Bush, former Sen. U.S. Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial investors of Nazi Germany. The Guardian has received confirmation through newly discovered documents to the U.S. National Archives that a firm with which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets are seized in 1942 under the Law of Trade with the Enemy, [...]
The document also prompted a former U.S. prosecutor of Nazi war crimes to argue that the actions of the deceased senator would have constituted sufficient grounds for prosecution for providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
[...] But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America entered the war or not and then there were already significant indications concerning Nazi plans and policies, [Prescott Bush] worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the same German companies who funded the rise of Hitler. It is also mentioned that the money accumulated after these transactions have contributed to the fortunes of the Bush family and to build their political dynasty .[...]» W235
*****
Returning for a moment on this attack that hit the U.S. facilities in Saudi Arabia, which made reference section of CBC, stating that in June 1996 about "a truck full of explosives destroyed the facilities of al-Khobar, which housed staff the Air Force, killing 19 soldiers. A group called Saudi Hezbollah had claimed responsibility. Possibly the Clinton administration ordered to stop investigations into this matter in order not to blur the relationship between the Arabs and Iran - the country that funds Hezbollah. L8 [...]»
Here are some additional interesting elements. The Americans then lost 19 of their soldiers in an attack, but decided not to seek culprits not to harm the relations of Arab investors rich, and then offered a whopping contract to rebuild these facilities to the bin Laden family, which amounted to several billion dollars.
Certainly it would be possible to argue that the context of 1996 was very different world post September 11 ˝ ˝, and the reaction would have been any other response to the tragedy of 2001 attributed to Al Qaeda.
To be sure, consider an article in the financial section of CNN, May 5, 2003, just four days after President Bush delivered his famous speech under the Mission Accomplished banner ˝ ˝, which referred to the end of major combat in Iraq - somewhat hastily announced it goes without saying.
"The Bush administration launched its war against terror based on alleged acts of Osama bin Laden. Ironically, one of the companies that the administration has chosen to rebuild Iraq after the recent fighting has links with the Bin Laden family, according to a published report.
Bechtel Corp.., A private construction firm based in San Francisco, was recently awarded a contract from the Department of State, a potential value of more than 600 million dollars to help the rebuilding infrastructure after the war by the Americans.
The Bush administration justified the war in part because it asserted that the Saddam Hussein, former leader of Iraq, had ties with Al Qaeda terrorist network headed by bin Laden, the group allegedly responsible for terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in the United States.
An article in the May 5 edition of the New Yorker magazine, several members of the Bin Laden family - part of a large family of Saudi Arabia who made his fortune in the construction field - has invested approximately ten million dollars in a private equity fund operated by a former subsidiary of Bechtel before September 11. [...]» L13
More disturbingly, this paradox does no exception in the roadmap of the Bush administration. On many occasions does one find examples in which some singularities surprise. So that, ultimately, behavior at the very least disconcerting emerges from the U.S. administration regarding the bin Laden family.
As rich as it is this family, American officials should not they avoid at all costs to maintain a relationship as friendly with the family of the man who is accused of orchestrating the worst terrorist attack in history?
Is it reassuring, for example, read articles about how the U.S. government brought its assistance to relatives of Osama bin Laden to allow them to leave the U.S. within days following the attacks of September 11? The following excerpt is from The New York Times, dated March 27, 2005.
"The story was said and repeated so often over the last three and a half years she has come to be among the legends policies: through the frenzy resulting from the September 11, 2001, when some planes were still banned from flying, dozens of Arabs having good relationships, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, found the means to leave the United States aboard specially chartered flights.
Now, newly released government documents, confidential until now indicate that it is from Las Vegas, including the FBI brought in a more active Arab support for their departure.
The FBI gave personal escorts to the airport two prominent Saudi families who fled the United States and several other Arabs were granted permission to leave the country without first being interviewed, the documents show. [...]» L14
For its part, publishing October 2003 Vanity Fair story dealt with a little more bite.
"Just days after September 11, wealthy Arabs, including members of the Bin Laden family crept outside the United States aboard private jets. Nobody is willing to admit to having given permission for these flights, and passengers were not interviewed. The long relationship of the Bush family with the Arab-she made this possible? [...]» L12
The remainder of this report adopts the point of view of Dan Grossi, a retired police officer in Tampa, Florida, who received 13 September 2001 a call out of the ordinary in which he was asked to escort a group of plane by Arab students from Tampa to Lexington, Kentucky. Knowing that 15 of the 19 terrorists who committed the worst atrocities in American history two days earlier were Arabs, Grossi seriously doubted the feasibility of it.
"˝ Frankly, I knew that all planes were banned from ˝ he said. ˝ I never thought it would come true. ˝ Still, Grossi, who had been asked to bring a colleague with him, called Manuel Perez, a former FBI agent to warn him. Perez was also unconvinced. ˝ I said, forget it ˝, Perez remembers. ˝ Nobody steals today. ˝
Both men had good reason to be skeptical. Within minutes of the September 11 attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued a special notice called NOTAM - Notice to the attention of the airmen - who ordered all aircraft flying in the United States of land as soon as possible to the nearest airport and aircraft ground prohibited from taking off. Over the next two days, the commercial and private aviation across the United States completely ceased operations. Former Vice President Al Gore found himself isolated in Austria when his flight to America was revoked. Bill Clinton also had to postpone his trip. Parts of major league baseball were canceled. For the first time in a century, the skies over America was almost as empty as it was when the Wright brothers took their historic flight at Kitty Hawk.
However, around 13:30 or 14h, September 13, Dan Grossi received his call. We informed him that the Arabs would be tabled to Raytheon Airport Services, a private hangar International Airport Tampa.
When he and Perez were left at the terminal, a woman laughed at Grossi for the simple thought that he might fly that day. Commercial flights began again calmly, but at 10:57 the FAA issued another notice to airmen, reminding them that private flights were still banned. Three private planes violated the ban that day, and in each case a pair of fighter jets forced the plane to land quickly. With regard to private aircraft, America was still locked. ˝ I was told that it would require the approval of the ˝ White House, said Grossi.
So one of the pilots arrived. ˝ ˝ Here's your plane, "he told Grossi. ˝ When you're ready. [...]» ˝ L12
This story, which caused a scandal when taken less than a year later in the documentary Fahrenheit 911 Michael Moore once again reflects the behavior of highly problematic the U.S. administration against the Saudi family. While it might be tempting to believe that September 11 is due to the incompetence of American leadership, this special treatment to Arabs can in turn be justified by such reasoning.
In fact, override a ban on flying, which required the consent of the highest U.S. officials, difficult to reconcile with the incompetence or negligence, when a private plane filled with Arab gets green light for the highest levels fly without them are first interviewed. It is instead a decision made knowingly.
The same report also questioned further on the subject.
"[...] In addition, FBI documents marked" Confidential ˝ ˝ indicate that two members of the Bin Laden family, who had regularly distanced Osama bin Laden, were under investigation by the Bureau [FBI] for their possible links with an organization suspected of supporting Islamist terrorism.
More recently, in July, the administration asked Congress not to publish 28 pages of its official report on Sept. 11. According to news reports, the confidential section reveals that there were links between the two Arab terrorists, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Brassnan, who maintained a financial association with members of the government of Saudi Arabia. Arab officials deny any involvement by their government with the attacks. The Arabs have asked that the pages are made public so they can refute them, but President Bush refused.
Terrorism experts say that the Arabs who were in the United States immediately after the attacks could have helped to highlight the structure of Al Qaeda and provide important clues to investigate September 11. And yet, according to sources involved in the repatriation, they left the U.S. without even being questioned by the FBI.
Officially, the White House refused to comment, and a source of internal supports that these flights have never occurred. However, former high-ranking officials of the Bush administration have said otherwise to Vanity Fair.
How is it possible that, just when President Bush declared a global war against terror without deductions that would send hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and just as Osama bin Laden becomes public enemy number one and the target of a global manhunt, the White House precipitated the departure of so many potential witnesses, including two dozen relatives of the man himself behind the attacks? [...]» L12
Needless to procrastinate on this aspect, the query above fully exposing the illogic and inconsistency of the actions of American leaders. Rather continue with an excerpt from the UPI (United Press International) issued October 31, 2001.
"A CIA agent allegedly met with suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden in July [2001], while the Saudi was receiving treatment for kidney problems in an American hospital in Dubai, reported Wednesday the French newspaper Le Figaro news.
According to reports, Ben Laden appeared on July 4 at the American Hospital in Dubai, a general hospital for specialized care which has 100 beds, and remained there until 14 July. He arrived from Quetta, Pakistan, accompanied by his personal doctor and an assistant close - possibly Ayman el Zawahiri, a leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, now the right arm of bin Laden, the newspaper reported.
Le Figaro quoted a professional partner ˝ ˝ related to hospital management as a source. Apart
a series of local dignitaries and family members, visitors to Ben Laden have included a local agent of the CIA, the newspaper reported. The agent was widely known locally, says Le Figaro, and has subsequently expressed his meeting with several friends.
The alleged American spy was called back to CIA headquarters in McLean, Va., July 15 - a day after bin Laden had left, Le Figaro reported, citing authoritative sources ˝ ˝.
The reason bin Laden met with a CIA agent - or vice versa - is unclear. Even before the terrorist attacks of 11 September, the Saudi millionaire figured among the first terror suspects in America being blamed for several earlier plots against U.S. targets, including bombing the World Trade Center in 1993.
But the French newspaper said that the links between the CIA and bin Laden go back many years in the past, and seemed to suggest that bin Laden had provided the agency with information about future terrorist attacks. [...]
An American diplomat in Paris refused to comment on the Figaro article, or allegations about an emergency meeting in Paris in August, between senior French intelligence services and U.S.. ˝ We
comment ˝ none of this, "he said. ˝ We can not talk about such meetings that may have occurred or not ˝. [...]
According to reports, the Director of the Department of Urology Hospital Dubai, Terry Callaway, refused to answer questions about the alleged residence of bin Laden. Radio France reported Wednesday that the U.S. hospital had denied that bin Laden had been treated. [...]» P5
Again, "that is consistent with the longstanding relationship between the Bush and Bin Laden families. Then observe that Article published August 15, 2005 by Newsweek, under the tutelage of MSNBC.
"During the 2004 presidential campaign, George W. Bush and John Kerry discussed the fact that Osama Bin Laden escaped Tora Bora in the last days [sic] the war in Afghanistan. Kerry accused Bush of failing ˝ chose to use American forces to hunt down and kill ˝ leader of Al Qaeda. [...] Bush argued in turn that the field commanders did not know if bin Laden was hiding in a mountain refuge along the Afghan border.
But in a forthcoming book, the commanding officer of Jawbreaker CIA on the ground at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders knew bin Laden was among the hundreds of al Qaeda and Taliban fugitives. Berntsen says he had clear information that bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora - agents of the intelligence service had traced - and it could have been captured. ˝ ˝ It was there, "said Berntsen NEWSWEEK. [...]
In his book - titled Jawbreaker - the head of the CIA, whose career brought him honorable distinctions, criticizes the Department of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for not providing enough support for special forces of the CIA and the Pentagon in the decisive moments in Tora Bora, says Berntsen's lawyer, Roy Krieger. [...] This is consistent with other recent evidence, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who described Tora Bora as a strategic disaster ˝ ˝ because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional staffing prevent members of Al Qaeda and Taliban escape. [...]» W81
One question: on what grounds the United States declare they war on Afghanistan, few weeks after September 11, 2001, under the pretext of fetching Osama bin Laden, then let him go while he was within their reach?
Is it a coincidence that this war should still raging more than seven years later? And is this not a retail capital, the U.S. does not deign to take the opportunity to grab the collar of the leader of Al Qaeda after only a few weeks of fighting?
*****
continue with a rather strange story from CNN. He appeared January 4, 2002, while the military campaign in Afghanistan was entering his fourth month of fighting.
"The Pentagon tries to persuade the last of Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan to engage in distributing leaflets that contain a modified image of Osama Bin Laden wearing Western clothes.
The print duplex is dispersed in areas of Afghanistan where the U.S. believes that Al Qaeda fighters are located.
The document includes an image of Afghan soldiers died and the following statement, with spelling unchanged: ˝ Usama bin Laden, the murderer and coward has abandoned al Qaeda. He has abandoned you and fled. Go and do not die needlessly, you are worthless to him. Save grief and pain of your death to your families.
˝
On the other side is a modified image of bin Laden, appearing without his turban or beard and wearing a white dress and a tie. In big letters it says: ˝ Usama bin Laden the murderer and coward has abandoned you! ˝ [...]
Some analysts argue that the modified photograph will not be well received in some parts of the Muslim world , where the suspicion towards the United States is already present. When
questioned whether the document could be used by some people to argue that the U.S. is prepared to modify or invent things - as was claimed about the video found in Afghanistan by the U.S. - the U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said he had not thought about that possibility. [...]» P1
While it is true that a leaflet stating that Osama bin Laden has abandoned his fighters could possibly encourage some Afghan drop the weapons, we may wonder how a photo of the Leader extremist in Western clothes could achieve the same result. This photo is it not, however, likely to inflame hatred of supporters of Bin Laden and, therefore, aggravate the situation?
Was not it arrogant of Americans to distribute this photo while the suspicions against them in the Arab world were already present? Indeed, such an image could easily be interpreted as reflecting an alliance between bin Laden and America.
And speaking of such an alliance, enchaînons with an excerpt MSNBC published in more than three years before the September 11 attacks, specifically August 24, 1998. It recounts the first steps of Osama bin Laden as extremely Islamic.
"At the CIA, it happens often enough to be a code name: 'Blowback'. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, a contact or a transaction that has turned against its creators. Osama Bin Laden, our new public enemy number one, is the personification of a 'blowback'. [...]
As his unclassified biography mentions the CIA, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia for fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow's invasion in 1979. From 1984 he led an organization serving as a facade known as Maktab al-Khidamar of - the MAK - to get money, weapons and combatants outside world toward the war in Afghanistan.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified version, at least) is that the MAK was maintained by the intelligence agency of Pakistan, or ISI, the most important conduit for the CIA secretly conducting his war against the occupation of Moscow. [...]» P7
Well, well. Osama Bin Laden was then used by the U.S. in the 80s against the Soviets. At the head of the MAK, more or less the puppet of the CIA, bin Laden worked for the benefit of U.S. leading the opposition forces in the invasion of Afghanistan in Moscow. It was indeed a major victory for the United States when the Soviets withdrew from the country in 1989.
At that time, the first financial ties were forged in a long time between Bush and Bin Laden families - long before Osama does not direct the MAK. Indeed, when Bush's father found himself to head the CIA in 1976-77, chaired by Gerald Ford, the inter-family relationships became evident (even Jim Bath, Salem bin Laden, Khalid bin Mahfouz, 1976). Would it be possible in such a context, the rise of Osama bin Laden to the direction of the MAK was due to his family that maintaining ties with the leadership of the CIA?
Moreover, it is not unlikely that bin Laden's most wanted man on the planet in this age of high technology, is still at large more than seven years after September 11? Note that in a world driven by money, Bin Laden may be thankful not having been terminated, with a ransom on his head, which rose from 27 (P6) to 50 million in the summer of 2007 (W176).
Consider also the more recent American military position on the need to capture it. The following excerpt is from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, a daily newspaper in the Dallas area, Texas, and was published February 23, 2007.
"The highest ranking officer of the army and former leader of the secretive world of Special Operations has shared his thoughts on the importance of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden during a luncheon here [Fort Worth] Friday.
And they were probably not what people expected.
˝ I do not know if we'll find ˝, said Chief of Staff military, General Peter Schoomaker, in his speech to the Rotary Club in Fort Worth. ˝ I do not know if it's that important, frankly speaking.
˝
Schoomaker, who came out of retirement to lead the army in 2003, designated the capture of Saddam Hussein's death his son, Uday and Qusay, and the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as evidence that the capture or death of Ben Laden would have little effect on threats to the United States.
˝ If we catch, what will happen next? ˝, Schoomaker said. ˝ There will be a temporary feeling of satisfaction, but long term it could make it more important than it is today. He is hiding and he knows that we seek. We know it is not particularly effective. I'm not sure the benefits are so great ˝ to capture or kill bin Laden. [...]» W26
other words, Gen. Schoomaker said in words that barely covered the United States do more to capture the essential responsible for the September 11 attacks, and even suggests that it might be preferable to grant him bail. Yet American anger towards bin Laden - a 'blowback' to use the term of the CIA - should it not fade in principle only after he has paid the price for his actions? Meanwhile, it is true that the continuing war against terrorism remains the most easily justifiable as the leader of Al Qaeda is off.
continue with another example that demonstrates the incongruity of U.S. procedures when dealing with links between Saudi Arabia and September 11. The following excerpt is from an article published in the famous Time, official partner of CNN, dated June 19, 2005.
"In the wake of September 11, Saudi authorities were criticized in the United States for their apathy in the investigation of attacks in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were of Arab citizenship. It now appears that the U.S. had their share of responsibility for the release with which the tracks were pursued, says Adam Zagorin of Time.
Several former employees of the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh [Saudi Arabia's capital], the FBI legal office located in the embassy were often disrupted during the months that followed September 11. When an FBI supervisor arrived on scene to clean up the mess, she found a mountain of papers and, for security reasons, ordered a complete shredding that resulted in the destruction of unprocessed records related to investigations of 11 September. [...]
The FBI sent reinforcements within two weeks after Sept. 11, but it seems that the Office team was not able to suffice for the thousands of tracks flowing from Saudi and U.S. governments. [...] When
up supervisor FBI was sent to the Riyadh office nearly a year after Sept. 11, she found secret documents literally overflowing drawers, stacked on cabinets, on tables and wedged behind cabinets, according to a briefing by the FBI to Congress. The process of sending classified material to the United States had so far behind a stock of boxes, each filled three feet [almost a meter] of paper containing secret and urgent track, had accumulated . Since embassies must be trimmed to the possibility of a coup hostile regulatory said that officials should have fifteen minutes or less to destroy all their confidential documents. Therefore, the supervisor ordered the shredding of hundreds, possibly thousands of pages, many of them related to ongoing investigations on Sept. 11, explained to Congress sent the FBI, reports TIME. [...]» F3
Thus, after allowing accumulated during nearly a year of piles and piles of documents containing urgent tracks that could advance the investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI suddenly looked too dangerous to keep such evidence and decided destroy them. No way, it seemed, to transfer these documents into a safer place, or to repatriate the country. Not to mention the fact that the shredding occurred precisely in the countries from which 15 of the 19 terrorists.
Is it really possible that the U.S. intelligence system is so disabled by their heavy bureaucracy? Or would it not make more sense than the Bush administration and the FBI have done so to protect again their Saudi counterparts, as did President Clinton ordered to stop investigations into bombings 1996, as did the President Bush by refusing to publish these 28 pages of a congressional report? Let's just
reported that a Boston Globe article, published September 5, 2004, on the pages kept secret in this report. The article is referring to 27 pages, but it is nevertheless the same pages kept confidential.
"Two of the September 11 terrorists had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government and the Bush administration and FBI blocked an investigation into this relationship," wrote Sen. Bob Graham a book to be published Tuesday.
Discovery financial support to two terrorist ˝ establish a direct link between terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration ˝ wrote the Democrat from Florida.
And in this book by Graham, Intelligence Matters, ˝ ˝, obtained yesterday by the Miami Herald, he makes clear that some details of financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27-page final report of the investigation Congress who were banned from publication by the administration, despite requests from leaders of both parties to the intelligence committees in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
[...] [Graham] has overseen the investigation of September 11 on Capitol Hill with Representative Porter Goss. According to Graham, the FBI and the White House blocked efforts to investigate the extent of links between Saudi officials and the two terrorists.
Graham wrote that the staff of the congressional inquiry concluded that two Saudis in the San Diego area, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Bassan, who provided significant financial support to the two terrorists were working for the Saudi government .
Bayoumi received a monthly allowance from a contractor for Saudi Civil Aviation who spent $ 465 to $ 3,700 in March 2000 after he helped Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdar - two of the September 11 terrorist - to find apartments and make contacts in San Diego before they begin the flight training. [...]» W20
We will return a little further on these two terrorists, because their story is simply amazing. Indeed, who would not be surprised to learn that these two individuals shared an apartment in San Diego with none other than an FBI informant in the fall of 2000?
This information could be one of the famous contacts which made reference to the Boston Globe?
Meanwhile, indications of a suspected link between the Bush administration and Saudi Arabia are beginning to accumulate. Since the Saudi government, and not Iraq or Afghanistan, was involved in financing the attacks, why at this moment does not choose to attack Saudi Arabia instead of blocking investigations that concerned? Recall that when he took office, the Bush administration already had strong views about the need to invade Iraq and that the publication of these 27 or 28 pages that pointed directly to the Saudi government had the power to thwart these plans come to war.
then look after the British section, published Nov. 7, 2001 in the Guardian Unlimited.
"The FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons, to complete investigations of members of the Bin Laden family within the United States before the terrorist attacks of 11.
The U.S. intelligence agencies were criticized for their failure in preventing the disaster at the World Trade Center. But some complain of having the hands tied.
FBI documents shown on BBC Newsnight last night and obtained by the Guardian show that they tried in the past to investigate two of Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington and a Muslim organization, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), which they were linked.
The FBI document, marked Confidential ˝ ˝ and coded 199, which means that the case involves national security, says Abdullah bin Laden, who lived in Washington, was initially attracted to open a file on him ˝ because of his relationship with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth - An organization suspected of terrorism ˝. [...]
Abdullah, who lived with his brother Omar at the time in Falls Church, a village just outside of Washington, was the U.S. director of WAMY, which held its premises in a basement nearby.
But FBI files were closed in 1996 apparently before any conclusions could not be made nor one nor the other bin Laden brothers or the organization itself. Highly placed source intelligence in Washington told the Guardian this week: ˝ There have always been constraints to investigate Saudi ˝.
They argue that restrictions augmented following the takeover of the Bush administration this year. The intelligence agencies were told to stop ˝ ˝ investigations involving other members of the Bin Laden family, Saudi Arabian royalty, and possible Saudi links to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan.
˝ Some investigations were effectively suppressed.
L2 ˝ [...] The same story was the next area on the other side of the planet in the Times of India, which used this time a much more direct.
"America has itself to blame for the events of 11 September because the U.S. administration has used gloves ˝ ˝ children in its screening of Osama bin Laden and other fanatics ˝ linked to Saudi ˝ Arabia, suggested a special investigation by the BBC in a damning indictment on the two presidents Bush and American foreign policy.
The report, based according to the BBC on a confidential FBI document, numbered 199I WF213589 and emanating from the FBI offices in Washington, argues that the cynicism of the establishment U.S. and ˝ links between the CIA and Saudi Arabia and the Bush and bin Laden families ˝ may have been the real cause thousands of deaths in the attacks on the World Trade Center. [...]» L11
***** Let us take a moment in a more contemporary context. In 2008, the last of the Bush administration in power, led by chance with her announcement of a military trial for six alleged leaders of the logistics of the plot 11. The following excerpt is from The New York Times edition of February 9, 2008.
"Military prosecutors are in final preparation the first major trial against suspected conspirators in the plot that led to the deaths of nearly 3000 U.S. 11 September 2001 and led the U.S. into war, said people familiar with the matter.
The charges, which will be introduced to the system of military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would involve up to six prisoners at the detention center, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the former right hand man of Osama bin Laden, who declared to be the main organizer of the conspiracy.
This trial could turn into the accomplishment of a goal long sought by the Bush administration guilty of presenting for the terrorist attacks of 2001. [...]
But the trial would also lead a thorough review of military commission system with a troubled past, criticized for a system created in order to get convictions without providing legal protections afforded by U.S. civilian courts . [...]
lawyers argued that the treatment by the Americans of two [of the six detainees] would inevitably be the focus of defense lawyers in their case.
One of them, Mr. [Khalid Shaikh] Mohammed, known as KSM, was subjected to the technique of waterboarding - or 'waterboarding' - while being held secretly by the CIA, confirmed this week Gen. Michael V. Hayden, CIA director. [...]
At a hearing at the Pentagon last year, he [Khalid Shaikh Mohammed] had claimed responsibility for more than 30 terrorist plots and attacks. He had then been explicit about his role in the 2001 attacks. 'I was responsible for the September 11 operation from A to Z', "he said. [...]» W206
What credibility do we give to the claim of some thirty terrorist attacks, including that of 11 September - 'A to Z' - a prisoner who was tortured by the CIA? Is not it plausible that this statement was made in order to stop the torture he suffered? After all, public condemnation of alleged perpetrators of September 11 they would not be welcomed by the Bush administration before leaving the White House?
note that this story quickly lead to new developments. Observe this excerpt from article published a few days later in The Nation, the oldest U.S. weekly, dated February 20, 2008.
"secret evidence. The denial of Habeas Corpus. Evidence obtained following the 'waterboarding'. Of indefinite detention. The nomenclature of complaints about treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay is extensive, disturbing and now well known. However, a new wave of astonishment and criticism was unleashed following the announcement by the Pentagon, Feb. 11, he prosecuted the six detainees, including the alleged leader of the logistics / 11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, under leaders charges of war crimes - requesting the death penalty for each.
While dark and almost legal staging of the military commissions the Bush administration unveiled a key leader has told The Nation that the trials were rigged from the start. According to Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor of military commissions at Guantanamo, the process has been manipulated by persons designated by the administration to prevent the possibility of acquittals.
Critics of Colonel Davis to commissions have increased since he made his resignation in October, telling the Washington Post that he had been pressured by senior political representatives of the Department of Defense to focus on issues deemed 'sexy' and 'high interest "(as the trial of 11 now begun in September) with the arrival of the 2008 elections. Davis, formerly a staunch defender of the commissions process, elaborated on his reasons [that led to his resignation] in an editorial in the Los Angeles Times December 10, 2007. 'I came to the conclusion that the trial completely fair and honest are not possible under the system current [military commissions in Guantanamo], 'he wrote. 'I felt that the system had become highly politicized and that I could not do my job effectively. "
Subsequently, in an interview with The Nation in February after the six Guantánamo detainees were charged, Davis showed the most incriminating evidence that military commissions are biased [...].
When asked if he thought the men at Guantanamo may be entitled to a fair trial, Davis reported that minutes of a meeting held in August 2005 between him and the prosecutor General of the Pentagon, William Haynes - the man who now heads the tribunal process for the Department of Defense. [...]
'I told him that if we fail [to condemn them all] and some acquittals in our cases slipped, at least it would validate the procedure', "said Davis. 'At that moment his eyes (those of Haynes) are wide open and he said' Wait a minute, we can not have acquittals. If we held these men for so long, how could we explain that we let them go? We can not have acquittals. We We need convictions. "
Davis rendered his resignation Oct. 4, 2007, just hours after being informed that Haynes had been placed above him in the chain of command commissions. [...]» W207
Certainly, this statement by Colonel Davis quickly became embarrassing for the Pentagon and for the credibility of the military commission system at Guantanamo. Especially in the aftermath of these revelations bumper appeared in The Nation, disturbing new information was published again, this time by Harper's Magazine American monthly publication dating back to 1850.
"Last week, the Defense Department launched a major media offensive. He announced that six "prisoners of importance, related to the attacks of September 11 would be charged in proceedings held by the military commissions at Guantanamo this spring. Specific charges concerning the role of each of the six [inmates] in the tragedy of Sept. 11 hanging in the media. For the most part, the media have only a little embroidery around the Pentagon scenario. [...]
But while the mainstream media American history presented focusing on the Pentagon, his statements and other matters of lesser importance [...], procedures at Guantanamo were given a different treatment abroad. Outside the United States 'Guantanamo' is synonymous with torture, abuse, dictatorship and injustice. [...]
As foreign media have regularly noticed something extremely suspicious surrounding the commissions 'military'. In fact, one of the best insights that brought criticism was that they were not 'Military' at all. They were apparently due to the military courtroom full of men and women in uniform to which all the cameras are turned. But as the case of [David] Hicks has shown, the military characters were puppets of FIG. Backstage, the puppet masters pulling the strings. And the puppet masters were people suspiciously partisan political allegiances. [...]
[Colonel Morris] Davis resigned because he felt that the commission system was rigged. [...] But Davis was not the only or even the chief prosecutor General to resign. Three others - Maj. Robert Preston, Capt. John Carr and Capt. Carrie Wolf - requested to be removed from office after having expressed their concerns that the process was rigged. One of them testified that he did guarantee that he did not worry about building a case in good and due form, the convictions were secured. [...]» W210
From that moment, especially after the statements of Colonel Morris Davis, the Bush administration could no longer afford to pursue both procedures at Guantanamo and William Haynes to keep his head. This would also leave, and soon. Here is an excerpt from the article by AP (Associated Press) appeared less than a week after these harmful publications, or February 26, 2008.
"The Attorney General who has served longer for the Department of Defense, who was criticized for his role in shaping Bush administration policies on detention and trial of suspected terrorists, has given his resignation to return to private life next month, the Pentagon said Monday.
William J.
Haynes II was appointed Attorney General by the Senate in May 2001. [...]
Daniel J. Dell'Orto, senior deputy attorney general at the Defense Department since June 2000, will assume the post of Attorney General, the Pentagon said. [...]» W209
Certainly, the Bush administration seems more willing to publicly lynch a handful of Arabs, whether guilty or not, to provide fair judicial proceedings for detainees at Guantanamo.
0 comments:
Post a Comment