My new book, ‘Chasing The Scream’, is now available
11 years ago
Friday, 6 May 2011
Glencore - the true face of ultra-capitalism
The good old Daily Mail exposes the dark underbelly of commodities giant Glencore in this feature. This is a more in-depth piece and bigger expose of global capitalist exploitation than anything you will find in The Guardian, where another piece clearly influenced by the Mail article also appears. Glencore's directors make billions on the back of the world's poverty-stricken producers of copper, wheat, zinc etc. The boss is like something out of a James Bond novel.
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Quarter life crisis - official
Finally the academics have identified the 'quarter-life crisis' - a period of emotional upheaval which usually leads to a reassessment of one's life and the start of a new direction. I went through it big time - and ever since wondered if my experience was unusual - after all, it was at least a decade early for the classic mid-life crisis. The features of it, according to the study by the University of Greenwich and Birkbeck, include a sense of being stuck in the wrong job, sexual frustration or relationship crisis - I went through all of these. A cocktail of professional, creative, emotional and sexual disappointment. It usually strikes between 25 and 35. Mine got under way seriously at 30. Apparently it usually lasts around 2 years. Mmmmm - I think mine lasted about a decade! Only toward the end of my 30s did I finally feel that I was moving into a life for myself that felt right, and that I was happy with who I was. Then again my quarter life crisis was probably mixed up with other deep emotional issues, and I had to leave London, which tends to drive even the psychologically robust mad. But I am glad that I can give it a name now, before the proper mid-life crisis strikes.
If you recognise the following, you may have had a QLC too - although to pack all this in to 2 years seems a tad rushed:
Phase 1 is defined by feeling "locked in" to a job or relationship or both.
Phase 2 is a rising sense that change is possible, along with a mental and physical separation from previous commitments.
Phase 3 is a period of rebuilding a new life.
Phase 4 involves developing new commitments that are more in tune with personal interests, aspirations and values.
If you recognise the following, you may have had a QLC too - although to pack all this in to 2 years seems a tad rushed:
Phase 1 is defined by feeling "locked in" to a job or relationship or both.
Phase 2 is a rising sense that change is possible, along with a mental and physical separation from previous commitments.
Phase 3 is a period of rebuilding a new life.
Phase 4 involves developing new commitments that are more in tune with personal interests, aspirations and values.
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Canada's election breakthrough for left despite right victory
Canadians have just voted for a kind of political revolution, wiping out two traditional parties - the Liberals and Quebec Bloc - and making the social democratic NDP the official opposition. The Canadian conservatives won the election, gaining a 54% majority of seats under the first past the post system, with just under 40% of the vote. It is a more decisive win than the Conservatives in the UK last year but is also further evidence of the potential downside of FPTP, unless of course you prefer a 'decisive' result. Decisive in this case means allowing a conservative party to override the political preferences of the majority of voters.
CANADA NATIONWIDE RESULTS, 2011
Party Popular Vote Seats Share of Seats
Conservative 39.6% 167 54%
New Democrat 30.6 102 33
Liberal 18.9 34 11
Bloc Québécois 6.0 4 1
Green 3.9 1 0.3 0.1
TOTAL 308
Most remarkably, it is a left of centre breakthrough in North America, where for many decades the left has been marginal in the US, Canada and Mexico. Perhaps Canada can show the way to the other North American nations, especially Mexico, with its election due next year.
CANADA NATIONWIDE RESULTS, 2011
Party Popular Vote Seats Share of Seats
Conservative 39.6% 167 54%
New Democrat 30.6 102 33
Liberal 18.9 34 11
Bloc Québécois 6.0 4 1
Green 3.9 1 0.3 0.1
TOTAL 308
Most remarkably, it is a left of centre breakthrough in North America, where for many decades the left has been marginal in the US, Canada and Mexico. Perhaps Canada can show the way to the other North American nations, especially Mexico, with its election due next year.
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Michael Meacher on 9/11 on Channel 4 news and Dutch TV
I never saw this interview with the former Labour environment minister Michael Meacher on Channel 4 news. It shows that there are intelligent establishment figures who do not accept the official story.
Here he is interviewed on a remarkable Dutch TV. He is also on this documentary shown in Holland in 2006 into the 9/11 events - something we have never seen in Britain. Here it is subtitled in ENglish.
Here is a video compilation of live news reports from 9/11 reporting secondary explosions in the WTC. Over 20 million people have seen this video.
Here he is interviewed on a remarkable Dutch TV. He is also on this documentary shown in Holland in 2006 into the 9/11 events - something we have never seen in Britain. Here it is subtitled in ENglish.
Here is a video compilation of live news reports from 9/11 reporting secondary explosions in the WTC. Over 20 million people have seen this video.
Vote Yes to AV and No to another Tory century
You do have to wonder where the motives lie in the No to AV Labour camp. These dinosaurs including Jack Straw and John Reid would rather form an alliance with the Tories than share power with others on the liberal left. At heart they are conservatives - they do not trust the voters. They believe in government of the minority over the majority - first past the post. Elections fought over a few million undecided voters who can be swayed by Tory media propaganda, rather than the whole electorate under a system where every vote counts. AV is far from perfect - no electoral system can be. But the more the electoral system prevents single parties from gaining absolute power in parliament, based on 30% of the vote, the better. Most strange of all, these anti-reform Labourites seem to have forgotten that FPTP gave us a whole century of Tory rule! Labour were in power for a grand total of 22 years in the 20th century. The Tories ruled for 59 of those 100 years. If you don't want to be ruled by the Tories for another century, you have to vote for reform. And if you don't like a system that gives all power to politicians in parliament who can ignore voters except at election times, you must support reform and vote Yes. Who do you trust - the politicians or the voters? If you trust the people, vote Yes to give them more power. If you trust the politicians, I suggest you come off the medication.
Bin Laden and 9/11 - what the US knew
According to Sibel Edmonds, the FBI translator whose reports to the 9/11 commission were blacked out because of their sensitive diplomatic consequences, the US received specific intelligence that Bin Laden had ordered attacks on US cities using planes in April 2001. That intelligence was ignored. Her criticism suggest that Bin Laden was indeed behind the 9/11 attacks, but because of the business and political interests of both the Saudis and Pakistan, these countries' role in 9/11 were overlooked and no action was taken against either country in the wake of 9/11. Turkey's role was also redacted from the 9/11 commission report. Again the huge commercial interests of US firms around defence contracts were implicated in this suppression of information. FBI informants also specifically warned that the terrorists were receiving flight training in US flight schools. Again, no action was taken to stop this.
Reports in the wall Street Journal and in French media that General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), ordered the wiring of $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, were never investigated. Ahmed was in the US at the time of the 9/11 attacks meeting US leaders, including CIA boss George Tenet, and making deals to ensure US support for Pakistan. Relations between the countries had been strained by Pakistan's nuclear programme and its support for North Korean and Libyan nuclear developments. Logically, if the US was going to declare war on any nations implicated in 9/11, it should have declared war on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Instead it targeted Afghanistan and Iraq.
Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking to Tim Russert on Meet the Press, said that he expected "in the near future . . . to put out . . . a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [bin Laden] to this attack."
Powell reversed himself, however, at a press conference with President Bush in the White House Rose Garden the next morning, saying that, although the government had information that left no question of bin Laden’s responsibility, "most of it is classified." According to Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, the real reason for the reversal was a "lack of solid information."
This was the week that Bush, after demanding that the Taliban turn over bin Laden, refused their request for evidence that bin Laden had been behind the attacks. A senior Taliban official, after the US attack on Afghanistan had begun, said: "We have asked for proof of Osama’s involvement, but they have refused. Why?" Hersh’s answer was that they had no proof.
Perhaps Bin Laden did not confess to his role in 9/11 before December 2001 for the simple reason that his actions posed a major threat to his hosts, the Taliban, who might have surrendered him to the US in order to avoid war. Reportedly, the Taliban were looking for a way out of conflict but the US was not interested.
The first and most famous of the "Osama bin Laden confession video tapes" was released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001. It had purportedly been made on November 9, 2001, after which it was allegedly found by US forces in a private home in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. In this video, an Osama bin Laden figure is seen talking about the 9/11 attacks with a visiting sheikh. During the course of the conversation, the bin Laden figure boasts about the success of the attacks, saying that he had planned them. Both US and British officials claimed that this tape left no doubt about bin Laden’s guilt.24
Stories in both the Canadian and British media, however, raised questions about the tape’s authenticity. These stories, besides pointing out the existence of the technical ability to create fake video tapes, also mentioned the suspicion of some people that the bin Laden figure was not Osama bin Laden himself.
A BBC News report said: "Washington calls it the ‘smoking gun’ that puts Bin Laden’s guilt beyond doubt, but many in the Arab world believe the home video of the al-Qaeda chief is a fake."
This question was also raised in Canada by CBC News, which pointed out that some people had "suggested the Americans hired someone to pretend to be the exiled Saudi."
This question was raised even more insistently in a Guardian story with the title, "US Urged to Detail Origin of Tape." Reporting "growing doubt in the Muslim world about the authenticity of the film," writer Steven Morris said:
The White House yesterday came under pressure to give more details of the video which purports to show Osama bin Laden admitting his part in the September 11 attacks.
Morris, pointing out that the White House had provided no details about how the Pentagon came to be in possession of the tape, added:
According to US officials the tape was found in a house in Jalalabad, eastern Afghanistan, and handed to the Pentagon by an unnamed person or group. . . . But for many the explanation is too convenient. Some opponents of the war theorise that the Bin Laden in the film was a look-alike.
When Dr. Bruce Lawrence, a Duke University history professor widely considered the country’s leading academic bin Laden expert, was asked what he thought about this video, he said, bluntly: "It’s bogus." Some friends of his in the US Department of Homeland Security assigned to work "on the 24/7 bin Laden clock," he added, "also know it’s bogus."
The other most famous of the "bin Laden confession tapes", is the video tape that was released on October 29, 2004, just before the presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry, leading to its being called "the October Surprise video." In this one, for the first time, a bin Laden figure directly addressed the American people. The Associated Press, focusing on the most important aspect of the speaker’s message, entitled its story: "Bin Laden, in Statement to U.S. People, Says He Ordered Sept. 11 Attacks." However, although the AP accepted the authenticity of the tape, there are serious reasons to doubt it.
A reason to be at least suspicious is the very fact that it appeared just four days before the presidential election and seemed designed to help Bush’s reelection – an assessment that was made even by CIA analysts. The video, moreover, evidently did help: Bush’s lead over Kerry in national polls increased right after it appeared, and both Bush and Kerry said that this tape was significantly responsible for Bush’s victory.
A surprising but little-known fact, because it has scarcely been reported in the mainstream media, is that the FBI’s "Most Wanted Terrorist" webpage on "Usama bin Laden" does not list the 9/11 attacks as one of the crimes for which Bin Laden is wanted. It does list bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi as terrorist acts for which he is wanted. But it makes no mention of 9/11.10 In 2006, Rex Tomb, then the FBI’s chief of investigative publicity, was asked why not. He replied: "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
What about the 9/11 Commission? Its report gave the impression that it was in possession of solid evidence of bin Laden’s guilt. But the Commission’s co-chairs, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, undermined this impression in their follow-up book, which they subtitled: "The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.")
As the endnotes for The 9/11 Commission Report reveal, whenever the Commission referred to evidence of bin Ladin’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, the Commission was always referring to CIA-provided information, which had (presumably) been elicited during interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives. By far the most important of these operatives was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, generally called simply "KSM," who has been called the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. The Commission, for example, wrote:
Bin Ladin . . . finally decided to give the green light for the 9/11 operation sometime in late 1998 or early 1999. . . . Bin Ladin also soon selected four individuals to serve as suicide operatives. . . . Atta – whom Bin Ladin chose to lead the group – met with Bin Ladin several times to receive additional instructions, including a preliminary list of approved targets: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Capitol.17
The note for each of these statements says: "interrogation of KSM."
Kean and Hamilton, however, reported that they had no success in "obtaining access to star witnesses in custody . . . , most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed." Besides not being allowed to interview these witnesses, Commission members were not even permitted to observe the interrogations through one-way glass or to talk to the interrogators. Therefore, Kean and Hamilton complained: "We . . . had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information. How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed . . . was telling us the truth?"
An NBC "deep background" report in 2008 pointed out an additional problem: KSM and the other al-Qaeda leaders had been subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques," i.e., torture, and it is now widely acknowledged that statements elicited by torture lack credibility. KSM was subject to waterboarding no less than 83 times! "At least four of the operatives whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report," NBC pointed out, "have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being ‘tortured.’" NBC then quoted Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, as saying: "Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, . . . their conclusions are suspect."22
From Sibel Edmonds:
More than four months prior to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan, he received information that: 1) Osama bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting four or five major cities; 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes; 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States; 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism Thomas Frields at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing 302 forms, and the translator translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the special agent in charge, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to "keep quiet" regarding this issue. The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General. The press reported this incident, and a report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004, stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001. Furthermore, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to Director Mueller saying that Mueller was surprised that the Commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing. Mr. Sarshar reported this issue to your investigators on Feb. 12, 2004, and provided them with specific dates, locations, witness names, and contact information for that particular Iranian asset and the two special agents who received the information (please refer to the tape-recorded testimony provided by Mr. Sarshar on February 12, 2004 and given to your investigators). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses, and documents I had seen. Mr. Sarshar also provided the Department of Justice Inspector General with specific information regarding this issue (please refer to DOJ-IG report "Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation," provided to you prior to the completion of your report).
Almost three years after Sept. 11, many officials still refuse to admit to having specific information regarding the terrorists' plans to attack the United States. The Phoenix Memo, received months prior to the 9/11 attacks, specifically warned FBI HQ of pilot training and its possible link to terrorist activities against the United States. Four months prior to the terrorist attacks, the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the "use of airplanes," "major U.S. cities as targets," and "Osama bin Laden issuing the order." Coleen Rowley likewise reported that specific information had been provided to FBI HQ. All this information went to the same place: FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C., and the FBI Washington Field Office in Washington, D.C. Yet your report claims that not having a central place where all intelligence could be gathered was one of the main factors in our intelligence failure. Why does your report exclude the information regarding the Iranian asset and Behrooz Sarshar from its timeline of missed opportunities? Why was this significant incident not mentioned, despite the public confirmation by the FBI, witnesses provided to your investigators, and briefings you received directly? Why did you surprise even Director Mueller by not asking him questions regarding this significant incident? (Please remember that you ran out of questions to ask during your hearings with Director Mueller and AG John Ashcroft, so please do not cite a "time limit.") How can budget increases remedy the failures of mid-level bureaucrats at FBI Headquarters? How can the addition of an "intelligence czar" fix this problem?
More from Sibel Edmonds
And from Micheal Meacher MP, writing in 2004:
British born jihadist Omar Sheikh, was the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?
Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?
Another person who must know a great deal about what led up to 9/11 is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, allegedly arrested in Rawalpindi on March 1 2003. A joint Senate-House intelligence select committee inquiry in July 2003 stated: "KSM appears to be one of Bin Laden's most trusted lieutenants and was active in recruiting people to travel outside Afghanistan, including to the US, on behalf of Bin Laden." According to the report, the clear implication was that they would be engaged in planning terrorist-related activities.
Yet the New York Times has since noted that "American officials said that KSM, once al-Qaida's top operational commander, personally executed Daniel Pearl ... but he was unlikely to be accused of the crime in an American criminal court because of the risk of divulging classified information". Indeed, he may never be brought to trial.
A fourth witness is Sibel Edmonds. She is a 33-year-old Turkish-American former FBI translator of intelligence, fluent in Farsi, the language spoken mainly in Iran and Afghanistan, who had top-secret security clearance. She tried to blow the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, but is now under two gagging orders that forbid her from testifying in court or mentioning the names of the people or the countries involved. She has been quoted as saying: "My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date-specific information ... if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country [the US] ... and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up".
Reports in the wall Street Journal and in French media that General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), ordered the wiring of $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, were never investigated. Ahmed was in the US at the time of the 9/11 attacks meeting US leaders, including CIA boss George Tenet, and making deals to ensure US support for Pakistan. Relations between the countries had been strained by Pakistan's nuclear programme and its support for North Korean and Libyan nuclear developments. Logically, if the US was going to declare war on any nations implicated in 9/11, it should have declared war on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Instead it targeted Afghanistan and Iraq.
Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell, speaking to Tim Russert on Meet the Press, said that he expected "in the near future . . . to put out . . . a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [bin Laden] to this attack."
Powell reversed himself, however, at a press conference with President Bush in the White House Rose Garden the next morning, saying that, although the government had information that left no question of bin Laden’s responsibility, "most of it is classified." According to Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, the real reason for the reversal was a "lack of solid information."
This was the week that Bush, after demanding that the Taliban turn over bin Laden, refused their request for evidence that bin Laden had been behind the attacks. A senior Taliban official, after the US attack on Afghanistan had begun, said: "We have asked for proof of Osama’s involvement, but they have refused. Why?" Hersh’s answer was that they had no proof.
Perhaps Bin Laden did not confess to his role in 9/11 before December 2001 for the simple reason that his actions posed a major threat to his hosts, the Taliban, who might have surrendered him to the US in order to avoid war. Reportedly, the Taliban were looking for a way out of conflict but the US was not interested.
The first and most famous of the "Osama bin Laden confession video tapes" was released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001. It had purportedly been made on November 9, 2001, after which it was allegedly found by US forces in a private home in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. In this video, an Osama bin Laden figure is seen talking about the 9/11 attacks with a visiting sheikh. During the course of the conversation, the bin Laden figure boasts about the success of the attacks, saying that he had planned them. Both US and British officials claimed that this tape left no doubt about bin Laden’s guilt.24
Stories in both the Canadian and British media, however, raised questions about the tape’s authenticity. These stories, besides pointing out the existence of the technical ability to create fake video tapes, also mentioned the suspicion of some people that the bin Laden figure was not Osama bin Laden himself.
A BBC News report said: "Washington calls it the ‘smoking gun’ that puts Bin Laden’s guilt beyond doubt, but many in the Arab world believe the home video of the al-Qaeda chief is a fake."
This question was also raised in Canada by CBC News, which pointed out that some people had "suggested the Americans hired someone to pretend to be the exiled Saudi."
This question was raised even more insistently in a Guardian story with the title, "US Urged to Detail Origin of Tape." Reporting "growing doubt in the Muslim world about the authenticity of the film," writer Steven Morris said:
The White House yesterday came under pressure to give more details of the video which purports to show Osama bin Laden admitting his part in the September 11 attacks.
Morris, pointing out that the White House had provided no details about how the Pentagon came to be in possession of the tape, added:
According to US officials the tape was found in a house in Jalalabad, eastern Afghanistan, and handed to the Pentagon by an unnamed person or group. . . . But for many the explanation is too convenient. Some opponents of the war theorise that the Bin Laden in the film was a look-alike.
When Dr. Bruce Lawrence, a Duke University history professor widely considered the country’s leading academic bin Laden expert, was asked what he thought about this video, he said, bluntly: "It’s bogus." Some friends of his in the US Department of Homeland Security assigned to work "on the 24/7 bin Laden clock," he added, "also know it’s bogus."
The other most famous of the "bin Laden confession tapes", is the video tape that was released on October 29, 2004, just before the presidential election between George W. Bush and John Kerry, leading to its being called "the October Surprise video." In this one, for the first time, a bin Laden figure directly addressed the American people. The Associated Press, focusing on the most important aspect of the speaker’s message, entitled its story: "Bin Laden, in Statement to U.S. People, Says He Ordered Sept. 11 Attacks." However, although the AP accepted the authenticity of the tape, there are serious reasons to doubt it.
A reason to be at least suspicious is the very fact that it appeared just four days before the presidential election and seemed designed to help Bush’s reelection – an assessment that was made even by CIA analysts. The video, moreover, evidently did help: Bush’s lead over Kerry in national polls increased right after it appeared, and both Bush and Kerry said that this tape was significantly responsible for Bush’s victory.
A surprising but little-known fact, because it has scarcely been reported in the mainstream media, is that the FBI’s "Most Wanted Terrorist" webpage on "Usama bin Laden" does not list the 9/11 attacks as one of the crimes for which Bin Laden is wanted. It does list bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi as terrorist acts for which he is wanted. But it makes no mention of 9/11.10 In 2006, Rex Tomb, then the FBI’s chief of investigative publicity, was asked why not. He replied: "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
What about the 9/11 Commission? Its report gave the impression that it was in possession of solid evidence of bin Laden’s guilt. But the Commission’s co-chairs, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, undermined this impression in their follow-up book, which they subtitled: "The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.")
As the endnotes for The 9/11 Commission Report reveal, whenever the Commission referred to evidence of bin Ladin’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, the Commission was always referring to CIA-provided information, which had (presumably) been elicited during interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives. By far the most important of these operatives was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, generally called simply "KSM," who has been called the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. The Commission, for example, wrote:
Bin Ladin . . . finally decided to give the green light for the 9/11 operation sometime in late 1998 or early 1999. . . . Bin Ladin also soon selected four individuals to serve as suicide operatives. . . . Atta – whom Bin Ladin chose to lead the group – met with Bin Ladin several times to receive additional instructions, including a preliminary list of approved targets: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Capitol.17
The note for each of these statements says: "interrogation of KSM."
Kean and Hamilton, however, reported that they had no success in "obtaining access to star witnesses in custody . . . , most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed." Besides not being allowed to interview these witnesses, Commission members were not even permitted to observe the interrogations through one-way glass or to talk to the interrogators. Therefore, Kean and Hamilton complained: "We . . . had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information. How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed . . . was telling us the truth?"
An NBC "deep background" report in 2008 pointed out an additional problem: KSM and the other al-Qaeda leaders had been subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques," i.e., torture, and it is now widely acknowledged that statements elicited by torture lack credibility. KSM was subject to waterboarding no less than 83 times! "At least four of the operatives whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report," NBC pointed out, "have claimed that they told interrogators critical information as a way to stop being ‘tortured.’" NBC then quoted Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, as saying: "Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, . . . their conclusions are suspect."22
From Sibel Edmonds:
More than four months prior to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan, he received information that: 1) Osama bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting four or five major cities; 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes; 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States; 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism Thomas Frields at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing 302 forms, and the translator translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the special agent in charge, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to "keep quiet" regarding this issue. The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General. The press reported this incident, and a report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004, stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001. Furthermore, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to Director Mueller saying that Mueller was surprised that the Commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing. Mr. Sarshar reported this issue to your investigators on Feb. 12, 2004, and provided them with specific dates, locations, witness names, and contact information for that particular Iranian asset and the two special agents who received the information (please refer to the tape-recorded testimony provided by Mr. Sarshar on February 12, 2004 and given to your investigators). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses, and documents I had seen. Mr. Sarshar also provided the Department of Justice Inspector General with specific information regarding this issue (please refer to DOJ-IG report "Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation," provided to you prior to the completion of your report).
Almost three years after Sept. 11, many officials still refuse to admit to having specific information regarding the terrorists' plans to attack the United States. The Phoenix Memo, received months prior to the 9/11 attacks, specifically warned FBI HQ of pilot training and its possible link to terrorist activities against the United States. Four months prior to the terrorist attacks, the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the "use of airplanes," "major U.S. cities as targets," and "Osama bin Laden issuing the order." Coleen Rowley likewise reported that specific information had been provided to FBI HQ. All this information went to the same place: FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C., and the FBI Washington Field Office in Washington, D.C. Yet your report claims that not having a central place where all intelligence could be gathered was one of the main factors in our intelligence failure. Why does your report exclude the information regarding the Iranian asset and Behrooz Sarshar from its timeline of missed opportunities? Why was this significant incident not mentioned, despite the public confirmation by the FBI, witnesses provided to your investigators, and briefings you received directly? Why did you surprise even Director Mueller by not asking him questions regarding this significant incident? (Please remember that you ran out of questions to ask during your hearings with Director Mueller and AG John Ashcroft, so please do not cite a "time limit.") How can budget increases remedy the failures of mid-level bureaucrats at FBI Headquarters? How can the addition of an "intelligence czar" fix this problem?
More from Sibel Edmonds
And from Micheal Meacher MP, writing in 2004:
British born jihadist Omar Sheikh, was the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?
Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?
Another person who must know a great deal about what led up to 9/11 is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, allegedly arrested in Rawalpindi on March 1 2003. A joint Senate-House intelligence select committee inquiry in July 2003 stated: "KSM appears to be one of Bin Laden's most trusted lieutenants and was active in recruiting people to travel outside Afghanistan, including to the US, on behalf of Bin Laden." According to the report, the clear implication was that they would be engaged in planning terrorist-related activities.
Yet the New York Times has since noted that "American officials said that KSM, once al-Qaida's top operational commander, personally executed Daniel Pearl ... but he was unlikely to be accused of the crime in an American criminal court because of the risk of divulging classified information". Indeed, he may never be brought to trial.
A fourth witness is Sibel Edmonds. She is a 33-year-old Turkish-American former FBI translator of intelligence, fluent in Farsi, the language spoken mainly in Iran and Afghanistan, who had top-secret security clearance. She tried to blow the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, but is now under two gagging orders that forbid her from testifying in court or mentioning the names of the people or the countries involved. She has been quoted as saying: "My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date-specific information ... if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country [the US] ... and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up".
Monday, 2 May 2011
Bin Laden is dead - his body apparently at the bottom of the sea
We will never see the corpse - so we will just have to take the word of Uncle Sam, the people who brought us Iraqi WMDs and the Bay of Tonkin. Bin Laden initially denied responsibility for 9/11. His alleged confession tape came later, in December 2001 and then another conveniently just before the 2004 US presidential elections.
On 17 September 2001 he said:
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."
Then on October 16 2001, to repeat his denial, he said:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."
These tapes for some reason do not feature in the story of Bin Laden.
Meanwhile among the many, many bizarre coincidences of 9/11 how about Marvin Bush, the president's younger brother , being a senior exec at Securacom, the company in charge of security at the WTC, as well as Dulles Airport and United Airlines - all sites central to the attacks. An interesting coincidence, at the very least - or perhaps a case of familial incompetence and bad luck!
In truth the Bush family have deep ties with Saudi oil money. GW Bush's own career was on the path to ruin until he was saved by Saudi money, who bought inot his failing oil exploration company. A Saudi sheikh with a long history of supporting jihadism owned Bush long before he became Governor of Texas and then President. Don't believe me? - look it up.
Intelligent people are understandably skeptical about claims that 9/11 was not simply the work of a freelance terror group with a record of terror attacks. But they are not taking into account the infiltration and funding of terror groups by the security services of the West and the links that tie terrorism, drug money, and the western intelligence services together. The motive to turn a genuine terror plot into something much bigger is there - huge amounts of money flowing from the war on terror, ensuring US global dominance and the 'security' of Israel for years to come. As Marx said, "the capitalist will wade knee deep in blood for a profit of 300%". The profits that flowed from 9/11 were considerably greater than 300%. Go figure...
On 17 September 2001 he said:
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."
Then on October 16 2001, to repeat his denial, he said:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."
These tapes for some reason do not feature in the story of Bin Laden.
Meanwhile among the many, many bizarre coincidences of 9/11 how about Marvin Bush, the president's younger brother , being a senior exec at Securacom, the company in charge of security at the WTC, as well as Dulles Airport and United Airlines - all sites central to the attacks. An interesting coincidence, at the very least - or perhaps a case of familial incompetence and bad luck!
In truth the Bush family have deep ties with Saudi oil money. GW Bush's own career was on the path to ruin until he was saved by Saudi money, who bought inot his failing oil exploration company. A Saudi sheikh with a long history of supporting jihadism owned Bush long before he became Governor of Texas and then President. Don't believe me? - look it up.
Intelligent people are understandably skeptical about claims that 9/11 was not simply the work of a freelance terror group with a record of terror attacks. But they are not taking into account the infiltration and funding of terror groups by the security services of the West and the links that tie terrorism, drug money, and the western intelligence services together. The motive to turn a genuine terror plot into something much bigger is there - huge amounts of money flowing from the war on terror, ensuring US global dominance and the 'security' of Israel for years to come. As Marx said, "the capitalist will wade knee deep in blood for a profit of 300%". The profits that flowed from 9/11 were considerably greater than 300%. Go figure...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
