|
9/11 Report
|
Twan
|
Sep 12, 2006 11:21 PDT
|
<<=====
September 11th, Our Report
By Marc Ash
t r u t h o u t | Executive Director
This report is dedicated to those lost.
In this report, we will attempt to clarify to the best of our ability
what brought about the attacks of September 11th, 2001.
History
We will proceed on the premise that persons of Islamic faith and
militant resistance to American and Western influence in Islamic
countries did carry out the attacks of September 11th, 2001.
To understand the attacks of September 11th, it is important to
maintain some historical perspective. The militant Islamic resistance
that Western countries are now confronted with has its origins in the
Crusades of the Middle Ages. While the Crusades may no longer be
important to most Westerners, they are to Muslims. The invaders were
called Infidels then, and they still are today.
In Islamic countries, Infidels are not hated for their beliefs but
rather for their actions. Western influence over the affairs of Islamic
countries over the centuries has been profound, and especially so over
the past hundred years. The Middle east, referred to by the West as the
Crossroads of the World, has been militarily dominated, economically
exploited, and culturally ravaged by the West.
One of the most effective methods for maintaining control of local
interests for the purpose of American corporate profit has been using US
military might to establish surrogate "sovereign" regimes. Often
referred to as "puppet governments," these ruling factions are often
repressive, dictatorial and corrupt. The Shah of Iran, the Kuwaiti Royal
Family and, yes, Saddam Hussein's Baathists are but a few such examples
of governments installed and supported by the US.
There is organized resistance to Western colonial influence in these
countries. That resistance has taken on many forms and employed many
methods over the years. The most high-profile and most violent
organization to emerge over the past quarter century has been al-Qaeda,
led by Osama bin Laden. Ironically, bin Laden too was at one time
trained and supported by the US. Al-Qaeda is only one of many
organizations that foment militant resistance to Western colonialism in
Islamic countries. Sometimes those various organizations cooperate, and
sometimes they do not.
The Attacks
The attacks of September 11th, 2001, were by no means an isolated
occurrence. They were part of a continuing string of attacks
orchestrated by bin Laden's network. It should be noted that al-Qaeda
appears to be only a part of a larger, continually evolving network of
militant resistance cells. The unifying thread appears to be the
leaders, rather than the specific organizations themselves.
Clearly, what set the September 11th attacks apart from other
attacks attributed to bin Laden's network was the scale. We find the
sheer number of hijackers and planes to be key to understanding where
our system failed in preventing the attacks. There were 19 hijackers
directly involved and four intercontinental aircraft. It was a big
operation, not, as some have suggested, a needle in a haystack.
We find that the scale of the 9/11 operation made it visible during
its staging. Indeed many of those who would pilot the hijacked aircraft
obtained training to do so at accredited US aviation training
facilities. Further, their activities did attract the attention of
federal authorities, and high priority reports were filed by federal
agents alerting their superiors to the danger.
We find the time that elapsed during actual attacks to be very
significant. The total time the hijacked planes were known to be in the
possession of the hijackers was nearly two hours. That raises the issue
of the role played by the North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD). We find that the NORAD system is indeed designed to address,
and is quite capable of addressing, this type of attack. We find,
further, that no plausible reason has been stated by NORAD officials as
to why that system, designed and fully prepared to address such an
attack, did not.
At Fault
We find the greatest single cause of the attacks of September 11th,
2001, to be US and Western domination of the best interests of Islamic
nations. We find such intervention, often carried out in recent years by
the US military under the umbrella of US National Security, is clearly a
detriment to that security. We find that it is the interests of large
corporations - particularly those related to the energy and arms
industries - that have become the priority for US military planners. We
find that such militarily-backed intervention spawned a militant and
determined resistance that was responsible for the attacks of September
11th, 2001. We find that such resistance will grow in response to
continued US military intervention in the sovereign affairs of these
nations. We recommend that the US public demand the US military be used
solely for the national defense.
We find that the US airport security screening process is, for the
most part, poor. We further find that private security interests tend to
make profits their number one priority rather than public safety.
Proponents of privatization have done a profound disservice to public
safety by advocating profit-driven solutions rather than
public-controlled solutions that would be more directly accountable to
public oversight. We find that the public does itself a disservice by
not demanding better.
The North American Aerospace Defense Command failed to do its job on
the morning of September 11th, 2001. Why is still not clear. To date, no
reasonable accounting of why NORAD simply did not do what it was clearly
designed and well equipped to do has been forth coming. We recommend
that the public redouble its efforts to investigate NORAD's still
unexplained absence on the morning of September 11th, 2001.
The American People
We find the US citizen to be at fault for not being aware of the
actions of the government that represents them. While any departure from
the public trust by a public entity should be regarded as an indictment
of that entity, the ultimate responsibility for overseeing the public
trust falls upon the citizens themselves. We find average Americans
dangerously disengaged from the activities of their government. We find
that greater involvement by US citizens in the day-to-day administration
of governmental activities would do more to insure the wellbeing of
public interests than any other factor. We recommend an immediate
increase in the involvement by US citizens in the administration of all
levels of government - local, state and federal.
The Bush Administration
As part of its charter, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission) was
prohibited from pursuing a critical examination of the Bush
administration's role. We have no such restrictions and, as the Bush
administration was the supreme controlling American authority, we have
reviewed their actions.
We find that an examination of the creation of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States provides powerful
insight into the role played by the Bush administration before and after
the attacks of September 11th.
We find that the Bush administration used the power of the executive
branch for months after the attacks of 9/11 to block the creation of any
official investigation into the action of the US government. Further,
such resistance by the Bush administration to an official investigation
continued in the face of repeated demands by the families of the victims
of the attacks. It was, in fact, that very pressure from the victims'
families that forced the Bush administration to reverse their position
and negotiate the creation of investigative body. However, during those
negotiations, the Bush administration refused - again - to cooperate,
until two demands were met: The 9/11 Commission must agree not to
investigate the executive branch, and the Bush administration itself
must be allowed to appoint - without review - the chairman of the
commission.
Clearly the Bush administration used, from the start, the power it
had negotiated to protect its own interests. The appointment of former
Nixon secretary of state Henry Kissinger as 9/11C chairman drew
immediate fire from critics, who charged that Kissinger would be more
likely to obscure the truth than reveal it. Kissinger resigned less than
two weeks later, after refusing to reveal the names of corporations
whose interests he represented. The subsequent appointment of former New
Jersey Republican governor Thomas Kean was less controversial but
ultimately subject to the final authority, the Bush administration.
We find that the objectivity and impartiality of the 9/11C must have
been compromised by being under the direct control of the Bush
administration. Further, such direct control of the 9/11C by Bush
administration officials renders the conclusions of the actions of the
Bush administration before, during, and after the attacks of 9/11 by the
9/11C fatally discredited. In short: We find that there has been no
meaningful independent official investigation of the actions of the Bush
administration's actions before, during, and after the attacks of 9/11.
We find that many high-ranking Bush administration officials hold
personal financial interests in the Middle East region. We find that the
attacks and resulting military campaigns did significantly enrich -
personally - many high-ranking Bush administration officials. Those
officials include, but are not limited to: George W. Bush, through his
family's oil and energy holdings in the region and their interest in the
international arms trade through the Carlyle group; and Richard Cheney,
through an ongoing relationship with the Halliburton Corporation and its
subsidiaries. In addition, Condoleezza Rice's free movement back and
forth between the job of National Security Adviser to Chevron director
and back to National Security Adviser again creates a conflict of
interest.
Our Recommendations
Above all else, the most important thing to the families of the
victims of September 11th, 2001, to the communities most directly
affected by the disaster, to the American people, who are still paying
the price and will be for a long time to come, and to the world is a
meaningful, transparent investigation.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
was an inherently political function; as such it failed. The "9/11
Commission" could not or would not pursue avenues of investigation that
would bring to account the executive branch of the US federal
government, in fact was prohibited from doing so in its charter.
We call for the naming of a Special Counsel. As an extension of the
Department of Justice's investigation of the attacks of September 11th,
an independent counsel must be named. That Special Counsel must be free
of political influence. Since the Bush administration as the executive
branch must necessarily be examined, no Bush administration-appointed
official, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, should be
involved in the selection of the Special Counsel or oversight of the
Special Counsel's work.
=====>>
|
|
 |
|
