CCCO welcomes Pablo Paredes on staff

Sponsored by Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors (CCCO)

Thursday, September 28th, 6:00--9:00 pm

The Humanist Hall

390 27th Street Between Telegraph Avenue and Broadway

Wheelchair accessible from 28th Street side of building.

(Free parking on 28th and 27th Street after 6 pm)

Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors' benefit welcoming Pablo Paredes, new GI Rights Coordinator. Pablo Paredes is an Iraq war resister and former Navy Fire Controlman. The evening's program will include entertainment and informative skits about CCCO's work. Refreshments provided. $5-10 donation requested at the door, but no one will be turned away for lack of funds.
Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors
(510) 465-1617 4 # Jeanne D. €
Thank you for working for peace!

see what happened after 9-11

The best way to end the war is to support war resisters.

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector
enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today."
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy

The “war on terrorism”: A double fraud upon humanity

The “war on terrorism”: A double fraud upon humanity
By Elias Davidsson (*)
May 2005 (revised in June 2005)

Shortly after the mass murder1 of 11 September 2001, the United States
administration announced a global “war on terrorism” that knows no borders or time
limits. Numerous states have since broadened police powers of secret surveillance,
house and body searches, detention without trial and enacted new types of offences
designated as “terrorist acts”. Yet the factual premises to justify such radical assault
on constitutional and human rights, have not been produced. The “war on terrorism”
is legally dubious and factually unjustified.

Among the effects of the major scourges affecting the international community, the
harmful effects of “retail terrorism”2 seem almost trivial compared to “wholesale
terrorism” committed by states, child mortality, civil wars, extreme poverty, illiteracy,
environmental degradation, third-world debt, lack of clean water, hunger, AIDS, drug
abuse, child prostitution and common murder. A person is more likely to die from a
lightning strike than from terrorism3. Drunken drivers cause 1000 times more deaths
than terrorists, yet no one has claimed that these drivers threaten international peace
and security.4 Terrorism only appears as a global threat because governments say so
and because mass media amplify this phenomenon beyond reasonable proportions.
In this essay it will be argued that the “war on terrorism” is not only a deceptive
concept – in fact an oxymoron - but represents itself a form of terror. By designating
terrorism as a global conspiracy threatening to attack anywhere and at any time,
whole populations are terrorized to fear the unknown and consent to increased
surveillance, security measures and restrictions of liberties. The events of 9/11, as
depicted by mass media, provided the necessary shock to prepare the public for the
construction of national and regional registration and surveillance systems intended to
monitor the movements and activities of entire populations.5 By exposing the “war
on terrorism” as a fraud and the 9/11 crime as its fraudulent justification, it will be
easier to mobilize public resistance against the creeping emergence of a totalitarian
world order.6

(*) The author who lives in Reykjavik, Iceland, and can be contacted at, wishes to
thank Prof. David Ray Griffin for his valuable insight and suggestions.
1 The author considers that “mass murder” is the most appropriate prima facie designation for
the events of 9/11. This designation will be used herein.
2 The author is indebted to Ed Herman and David Peterson for the terms “retail” and
“wholesale” terrorism. The former term refers to terrorist acts by non-state, mostly
clandestine, groups. The latter refers to measures committed at the behest of and with the
resources of states. See “The Threat of Global State Terrorism”, on
3 On an average year about 82 persons die in the U.S. from lightning strikes. See:
4 John W. Dean, “Liberties Disappearing before our Eyes,” Los Angeles Times, 21 September
2003, at
5 See, Richard Norton-Taylor, “Warning on spread of state surveillance,” The Guardian, 21
April 2005, at,3604,1464412,00.html
6 See, particularly, Jean-Claude Paye, “La fin de l’ƒtat de droit: La lutte antiterroriste de l’Žtat
d’exception ˆ la dictature”, La Dispute/SNƒDIT, Paris (2004)
The genesis of the “war on terrorism”
The etymology of the word terrorism can be traced to Robespierre and his “
la terreur”, namely government intimidation of the People.7 Today, the term is mainly
used by states to designate and repress violent actions by opposition groups.8 Yet the
original meaning of the word terrorism, reflecting a state policy, is still employed by
concerned scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, Ed Herman and others. The elusive
concept of terrorism (“one’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter”) has
prevented the adoption of an internationally recognized definition of terrorism.9 A
particular point of contention is whether policies by governments that aim to coerce or
terrorize civilian populations by military attacks or economic sanctions (or the threat
thereof), should be designated as terrorism.10 The Statute of the International Criminal
Court does not include terrorism on its list of international crimes.11
Through [U.S.] National Security Directive No. 179 of July 20, 1985, a high level
U.S. “Task Force on Combatting Terrorism” was established12. The rationale for this
measure was that “[i]nternational terrorism poses an increasing threat to U.S. citizens
and our interests. Terrorists are waging a war against, not only the United States, but
all civilized society in which innocent civilians are intentional victims and our
servicemen are specific targets.” Yet, according to Joanna Bourke, the terrorism
threat was already at that time contrived: “[J]ust 17 people were killed by terrorists in
America between 1980 and 1985.”13
Even before the events of 9/11, the annual federal budget of the United States for
combating [retail] terrorism had reached sums exceeding 6 billion dollars.14 The
budget of the FBI Counterterrorism program alone grew from $78.5 million in 1993
8 According to the U.S. legislature, the “criminal offense of terrorism was a new offense created
in Senate Bill 184 and was defined in terms of the commission of an existing specified
offense, coupled with the intent to either 1) intimidate or coerce a civilian population, 2)
influence the policy of any government by intimidation or coercion, or 3) affect the conduct of
any government by the act that constitutes the offense of terrorism.” Individuals who
committed the criminal offense “would be facing a penalty that is one degree higher than the
most serious underlying specified offense that he or she is alleged to have committed.” At
9 See, for example, Brian Whitaker, “The definition of terrorism”, The Guardian, 7 May 2002,
10 Based on the US statutory definition of international terrorism [US legal code (Title 18 ¤
2331)], comprehensive economic sanctions would include all the constitutive elements of this
statutory crime. Such measures have shown as being (a) "dangerous to human life"; (b)
"appear to be intended to coerce a civilian population"; (c) "appear to be intended to influence
the policy of a government by ...coercion"; (d) "transcend national boundaries in terms of the
means by which they are accomplished".
11 The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, at
12 At
13 Cited by Linda Maher in the Sunday Business Post Online, March 13, 2005, in her review of
the book “Fear, a Cultural History” by Joanna Burke
14 John Parachini, Center for Non-proliferation Studies, Testimony before the House
Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, July 26,
2000, Figure 1, p. 1, []). On FY 1998 the figure was $6.5 billion, on FY
2000 $8.4 billion (source: Monterey Institute of International Studies, )
to $301.2 million in 1999,15 a year in which six (6) Americans died worldwide of
terrorist acts.16
Merely hours after the “hijacked” aircraft crashed on 9/11, before any evidence could
be examined, “federal authorities” designated the main suspect: Osama bin Laden, the
alleged head of al-Qa’ida.17 Within three days the FBI claimed to have identified the
19 “hijackers” and the links established between them and al-Qa’ida.18 The new
existential enemy of “Western civilization” was firmly established. It was a myth
crafted carefully by intelligence services, nurtured since then by mass media19 and
accepted uncritically by numerous authors and scholars. As a result of the events of
9/11, as presented by the media, “al-Qa’ida” became almost overnight the subject of
innumberable books, studies, articles and comments, vying to analyze and
demonstrate the workings of this mythical conspiracy.20 Yet there is no credible
evidence for the claim that “al-Qa’ida” was responsible for the crime of 9/11, nor is it
certain that there exists, at all, an organization by the name of al-Qa’ida.21
The mass murder of 9/11 permitted the U.S. administration to formulate a new
military strategy that justifies the pre-emptive use of force anywhere in the world in
the name of an unlimited war against terrorism.22 Secretary of Defense Donald H.
Rumsfeld expounded this new strategy before it became official U.S. policy. It was,
for example, described in the New York Times of 27 September 2001 under the
15 Louis Freeh, Director FBI, Statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies, February 4, 1999, page 1,
( )
16 See statistics on international terrorism on the Department of State website, at
17 Associated Press, 11 September 2001: “Today, our nation saw evil”
18 Associated Press, 14 September 2001, “19 people identified by the FBI as hijackers aboard
the four planes that crashed Tuesday”
19 As an example, the French newspaper of record, Le Monde, published 500 articles in 2003,
which referred to “terrorism”. Not a single person in France died during that year from
terrorism. Maureen Dowd, a regular contributor to the New York Times, wrote on 20 August
2003: "The Bush team has now created the very monster that it conjured up to alarm
Americans into backing a war on Iraq.”
20 A search of the string “al Qaeda” on the website of what is presented as the World’s Largest
Online Library (Questia), yielded 141 books, practically all written after 9/11. The same
search yielded 4728 newspaper articles, 451 journal articles and 2637 magazine articles. at
21 Referring to his meeting with an unnamed al Qa’ida expert at the Rand Corporation Leonid
Shebarshin, ex-chief of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service, said: “We have agreed that
[al-Qaeda] is not a group but a notion...The fight against that all-mighty ubiquitous myth
deliberately linked to Islam is of great advantage for the Americans as it targets the oil-rich
Muslim regions.” Source: Moscow News, 23 March 2005, at; see also Brendan O’Neill, “Does al-
Qaeda exist?” 28 November 2003, at h t t p : / / w w w . s p i k e d - An good overview of the al Qa’ida myth is
provided by Standard Schaeffer in his Interview with Historian R.T.Naylor (“Al Qaeda Itself
Does Not Exist”), 21 June 2003, CounterPunch, at
22 The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, signed by President George
W. Bush on 17 September 2002, at
heading “A New Kind of War”23 and in his speech to the North Atlantic Council on
18 December 2001.24
Later, Rumsfeld hinted the “war on terrorism” would never stop:
I think we will eventually sufficiently damage the so-called al-Qa’ida terrorist
network that it will not be able to function. But there are many other terrorist
networks and people will form new groups. Just as we go to school on them,
they go to school on us. As they see us do certain things they change their
techniques and change how they're attacking and keep looking for themes or
vulnerabilities or asymmetrical ways to damage us.” 25
Asked by a member of the audience “when you look two or three years down the
road, do you have a picture in your mind as to how the war on terrorism comes to an
end and what the end looks like?”, Rumsfeld answered:
“On the assumption that human nature is not going to change dramatically in
that period of time, one has to assume that there will be people who will be
teaching the kind of thing that's being taught in too many Madrasas and too
many locations around the world, that there will still be people who will be
looking for ways to damage the West, the United States, and free people.
Clearly a terrorist can attack at any time, any place, using any technique, and
it's physically not possible to defend it every time in every place against every
technique. ... It is that cooperation across the globe that is putting pressure on
terrorists. It does not mean that there will not be additional terrorist attacks
that are successful. There will be. And there will be in country after country.
There will be a lot fewer than there otherwise would have been.”26
He also hinted at the value of the 9/11 mass murder for U.S. global leadership:
“Citizens of more than 80 nations died that day27. And citizens of every nation
saw, in an instant, that the threat of terrorism is no longer confined by
borders, in either its origin or the targets of its deadly acts. In the global war
against terrorism, President Bush has assembled the largest coalition in the
history of mankind. The scope of this alliance is truly breathtaking in its
breadth and its depth. Some 90 nations -- nearly half of the countries on the
face of the earth -- are participating in the global war on terrorism.28
To sum up, the U.S. Secretary of Defense forecasted that there will additional,
successful, terrorist attacks “in country after country” and that “people will form new
[terrorist] groups”, whose primary motive will be “to damage the West, the United
States, and free people”. In his Testimony, delivered before the House and Senate
23 Mirrored at
24 At
25 At a FORTUNE Global Forum meeting, 11 November 2002, at
26 Id.
27 According to an accurate list, merely 36 (not 80) nationalities were represented among the
victims of 9/11. See Victims by Country and Citizenship, at
28 Id.
Armed Services Committees regarding Iraq on 18 September 2002, he emphasized
this forecast: “Let there be no doubt: an attack will be attempted. The only question is
when and by what technique. It could be months, a year, or several years. But it will
happen. It is in our future.”29 Was Donald Rumsfeld simply endorsing a fatalistic
worldview or was he indirectly suggesting that the United States would ensure the
persistence of terrorism?
The crime of 9/11 catalyzes public opinion
U.S. media, as exemplified by an editorial of Time magazine, compared 9/11 to the
attack on Pearl Harbor and urged a similar response: “A day cannot live in infamy
without the nourishment of rage. Let’s have rage. What’s needed is a unified, unifying
Pearl Harbor sort of purple American fury.”30 The report “Rebuilding America’s
Defenses” issued by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), a right-wing
institution established by Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot
Abrams, Jeb Bush and other neo-fascists31, suggested a year before 9/11 that "some
catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" could speed up the
“revolutionary” process of transforming the US military into "tomorrow's dominant
The “new Pearl Harbor”, needed to speed up the “revolutionary” transformation of the
U.S. defense establishment, materialized, as if by miracle, on 11 September 2001.
Almost 3000 people died in this carefully planned, perfectly executed and
dramatically publicized act of mass murder.33 The 9/11 events caused a threefold
29 “Rumsfeld Says Issue in Iraq is Disarmament, Not Weapons Inspections,” United States
Mission to the European Union, at
30 Lance Morrow, “The case for Rage and Retribution”, Time, September 11, 2001 (cited in
David Ray Griffin, “The New Pearl Harbor, Disturbing Questions about the Bush
Administration and 9/11”, Olive Branch Press, Northampton, Mass., 2004, p. xi). The thesis
that Pearl Harbor took America by surprise is now discredited. In his 1982 book 'Infamy:
Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath', Pulitzer-prize winner John Toland reveals that almost
everything the Japanese were planning to do "was known to the United States" on the morning
of the attack, via intercepted messages never communicated to commanders at Pearl Harbor.
Cited by Heather Wokusch in Infamy: Pearl Harbor, 911 and the Coming Outrage,, September 10, 2004, at
06.htm; Robert B. Stinnett’s “Day of Deceit”, published in 2000, goes further: “After 16
painstaking years of uncovering documents through the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA],
respected journalist and historian, Bob Stinnett, now charges that U.S. government leaders at
the highest level not only knew that a Japanese attack was imminent, but that they had
deliberately engaged in policies intended to provoke the attack...and the purpose of this plan
was to draw a reluctant, peace-loving American public into the war for good or ill.” Pearl
Harbor: Official Lies in an American War Tragedy? Introductory remarks by David Theroux
a t t h e I n d e p e n d e n t I n s t i t u t e , 24 May 2 0 0 0
31 The author thinks that the term “neo-fascist” captures better the ideology of the ruling elite in
the United States than the commonly used term “neo-con” (“neo-conservatives”). The “neofascist”
ideology is predicated on the construction of a powerful “national security state”, a
disregard for human rights, an increase of covert and mass surveillance, deliberate
manipulation of the citizenry and use of the State to promote corporate interests.
32 Project for the New American Century, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” September 2000, p.
51, at
33 Exactly 2948 persons were confirmed dead according to The manner of the
attack was designed and the targets selected with the dramatic impact on ordinary people in
surge in public support for increased defense spending and “a 30 percentage point
increase in the number of mothers who felt that missile defense was a good idea post-
9/11.”34 Support swelled for a “strong” Bush presidency as well as confidence in the
government and the media. “Four out of five Americans are ready to give up some of
their freedoms in return for more security; nearly half worry about becoming victims
of a terrorist attack. [Attorney General John]Ashcroft has done his work well.”35
Creating public fear permitted legislators to extend law-enforcement powers to a new
category of individuals (“suspected terrorists”) who could now be lawfully monitored,
searched and detained without warrant36. The model legislation for such new police
powers was the so-called USA PATRIOT Act, adopted in the United States shortly
after 9/11.37 While criticized by human rights organisations, further restrictions to
human rights (in the name of fighting against terrorism) were envisaged. Preventive
law-enforcement, a policy that requires permanent surveillance of entire social,
political or ethnical groups38, is now increasingly applied by Western governments
under various pretexts, such as the need to fight terrorism, money laundering, child
prostitution or drug smuggling.39
The regular and enormous flow of public funds to the military-industrial complex,
ensured by maintaining the fear of Soviet communism,40 was at risk of drying up after
the demise of the Soviet threat. A new policy of fear mongering was urgently needed
to keep the money flowing and the shareholders happy. The events of 9/11 served
perfectly that role.41
mind. The term “mass murder “ appears prima facie the most appropriate for the events of
34 The Impact of September 11 on Public Opinion: Increased Patriotism, Unity, Support for
Bush; More Interest in News, A Brookings/Harvard Forum, 27 March 2002, at: mirrored on
35 Dennis Jett, “The politics of fear”, Christian Science Monitor, June 17, 2002. Dennis Jett is
dean of the International Center at the University of Florida.
36 A Google search on 19 May 2005 yielded 152,000 web pages on the string “suspected
37 The official title of the USA PATRIOT Act is: "Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001," H.R.
38 The policies are initially directed at specific “risk” groups (Muslims, aliens). After being
accepted by the general public, the group targeted for surveillance may be widened to what
officialdom designates as “disruptive” groups (trade unions, anti-globalization and
environmental movements). For a literature review on “preventive law-enforcement”, see
Dean at supra note 3.
39 A representative argumentation for increased levels of surveillance can be found in the speech
given by Germany’s Federal Minister of the Interior, Otto Schily, at Witten/Herdecke
University on 21 February 2005, see:
40 See, for example, Robert Higgs, “World War II and the Military-Industrial-Congressional
C o m p l e x ,” Freedom Daily, 1 May 1995, The Independent Institute, at
41 See Ruth Rosen, “Politics of Fear”, San Francisco Chronicle, 30 December 2002, at; William Schroder, “American
Imperialism and the Politics of Fear Before Iraq, there was the Philippines”,, 15 February 2005, at
22.htm; Institute of Race Relations, “The politics of fear: civil society and the security state”,
June 2004, at; Bill Van Auken, “Two ‘sting’
In terms of foreign policy goals pursued by the neo-fascists in the U.S. administration,
the events of 9/11 provided invaluable, long-sought, opportunities, such as to create
U.S. client regimes in Afghanistan42 and Iraq. Richard Clarke, former U.S.
Counterterrorism Coordinator, reports to have returned to a conference in the White
House at 2:00 AM on 12 September 2001. He expected there to discuss the immediate
consequences of the previous day’s events. Instead:
“I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous
that we were talking about something other than getting Al Qaeda (sic). Then I
realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were
going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda
about Iraq...On [that] morning [...][the] focus was already beginning to shift
from Al Qaeda (sic)...Later in the day, Secretary Rumsfeld complained that
there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should
consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought
Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out
of hand the idea of attacking Iraq.”43
Was the crime of 9/11 a case of international terrorism?
On 12 September 2001, the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution condemning
the mass murder of 9/11 as an act of “international” terrorism.44 The Council was not
presented with any evidence proving that the crime was instigated from outside the
United States. On 2 October 2001, the US Ambassador at Large and Co-ordinator for
Counter-terrorism, Frank Taylor, presented to the North Atlantic Council, NATO's
top decision-making body, a secret dossier. On the base of that dossier the Council
“determined that the individuals who carried out the attacks belonged to the worldwide
terrorist network of Al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and protected by the
Taleban regime in Afghanistan.”45 The dossier, which allegedly contains the
incriminating evidence, remains to this day secret.46 Recalling the lies told by U.S.
administration officials and by British Premier Tony Blair regarding alleged Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction,47 one is entitled to doubt the veracity of the information
contained in the “secret dossier” on 9/11.
The U.S. administration has consistently refused to produce the evidence that it
possesses or is deemed to possess regarding al Qa’ida’s responsibility for the mass
operations raise disturbing questions about US terror alert”. World Socialist Web Site, August
2004, at
42 Apparently, the U.S. had already before 9/11 planned to invade Afghanistan. See, inter alia,
“US ‘planned attack on Taliban’”, BBC, 18 September 2001, citing Niaz Naik, a former
Pakistani Foreign Secretary, at
43 Richard Clarke, “Against All Enemies,” Free Press/Simon & Schuster (2004), Chapter 1
44 SC Resolution 1368 (2001), OP 1, at
45 NATO Update, 3 October 2001, at
46 The secret nature of this dossier was confirmed to the author in a letter from Iceland’s
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of 18 February 2005 (Iceland is member of NATO and of the
North Atlantic Council).
47 See, for example, the Downing Street Secret Memo of 23 July 2002 (signed by Matthew
Rycroft). It documents how the U.K. Government fixed facts to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Posted on 1 May 2005 at the Sunday Times (London) website:,,2087-1593607,00.html
murder of 9/11. Items of evidence the U.S. administration refuses to produce include,
inter alia,
• the original passenger lists of the four allegedly hijacked aircraft (on which the
names of the alleged hijackers are expected to be listed);
• coupons of boarding cards (they would have the names of the alleged hijackers
on them);
• payment records for purchased flight tickets (they would have both names and
credit card numbers of the alleged hijackers);
• testimonies of ground personnel who saw off the passengers boarding the aircraft
and were interviewed on 9/11 or shortly thereafter;
• hijackers’ bodily remains.
In addition, the U.S. authorities have refused to release photographic and video
evidence in their possession proving that flight AA77 crashed on the Pentagon. The
reasoning offered for refusing to release this evidence is that it “would reasonably be
expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings”48.
If the official account on 9/11 is true, there can be no discernable reason why the
disclosure of a video recording showing the impact of AA77 on the Pentagon on 9/11
could “reasonably interfere with enforcement proceedings”. The only plausible
explanation for this refusal is that the aircraft which crashed on the Pentagon was not
a Boeing 757 (flight AA77). This would fit in with the conclusion by Sami Yli-
Karjanmaa that “[b]elief in the official B-757 story implies belief in physically
impossible and inexplicable phenomena.”49 If flight AA77 did not crash on the
Pentagon, it would mean that the U.S. authorities lied and owe us all an explanation
what happened to the passengers who allegedly boarded that flight and do not live
Shortly after 9/11, British and Arab media reported that at least five of the 19
individuals listed by the FBI as the “hijackers” (Abdulaziz Alomari, Wail al-Shehri,
Salem al-Hamzi, Saeed al-Ghamdi and Ahmed al-Nami) were still living,50 FBI
Director Robert S. Mueller admitted twice on CNN (20 and 27 September 2001) that
there is “no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers”.51 Yet, the FBI
maintains on its website the names and photographs of the “living suicide hijackers”
as if his own doubts about the “hijackers’” identities were of no consequence.52 What
proof is there that the alleged hijackers were at all Muslims and had any relation to al
48 This was the answer from the Department of Justice to a private FOIA request for such
information. Both the letter of request and the answer are reproduced as facsimile posted on
49 Sami Yli-Karjanmaa (Critical Analysis of the Pentagon Building Performance Report), “The
ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report: Arrogant Deception - Or an Attempt to
Expose a Cover-up?”, (Conclusions), first published Sept. 05, 2004, last updated March 06,
2005, at
50 A collection of articles regarding the “living hijackers” is found on:
51 Cited by Timothy W. Maier, “FBI Denies Mix-Up Of 9/11 Terrorists”, on Insight on the
News, 11 June 2003, at
52 Names of alleged hijackers’:
Photographs of alleged hijackers:
Qa’ida, if their identities are not really known? The “9/11 Commission” established
by President Bush, glossed entirely over this question.
Dismissing the need to prove U.S. allegations on the responsibility of al Qa’ida and
Osama bin Laden for the mass murder of 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld contends that “in the
age of weapons of mass destruction”, standards of evidence requiring to prove guilt
“beyond a reasonable doubt”53 are not appropriate:
“We still do not know with certainty who was behind the 1996 bombing the
Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia—an attack that killed 19 American service
members. We still do not know who is responsible for last year’s anthrax
attacks. The nature of terrorist attacks is that it is often very difficult to
identify who is ultimately responsible. Indeed, our consistent failure over the
past two decades to trace terrorist attacks to their ultimate source gives
terrorist states the lesson that using terrorist networks as proxies is an
effective way of attacking the U.S. with impunity.”54
One of the characteristics of terrorism is, however, the intent of the perpetrators to
attain a political gain through the threat or use of violence against civilians.55 The
primary aim of a terrorist is not to cause damage or harm, but to make a political
statement. In order for the message to be driven home, the terrorists must claimed
authorship. Violent acts, such as bombings and aircraft hijackings, which are claimed
by no one (or by dubious, anonymous, groups), must be presumed to be “false flag”
operations by intelligence services. Such covert operations are committed in order to
destabilize governments, strain relations between states, justify foreign intervention or
cast blame on an “enemy”.56 Were the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi
Arabia, the unexplained murderous attacks on civilians in Iraq or the mass murder of
9/11, “false flag” operations? This is indeed what a growing number of observers
The U.S. and its allies have been unwilling to prove Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida’s
responsibility for 9/11. They claim that revealing such proof would undermine the
effectiveness of their “war on terrorism”. But is this claim compatible with the
reluctance of the U.S. authorities to investigate the deadliest mass murder in
contemporary American history?
In fact, merely 24 hours after 9/11, at a meeting in the White House’s Cabinet Room,
Attorney General John Ashcroft stated that the FBI should not waste its time to
investigate and identify those responsible for the mass murder committed in the
53 A legal discussion of the expression “beyond reasonable doubt” can be found on
54 Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the House and Senate
Armed Services Committees regarding Iraq, September 18-19, 2002, at
55 Proposed definition by Boaz Ganor, “Defining Terrorism: Is One Man’s Terrorist Another
Man’s Freedom Fighter?” at
56 The most notorious cases of “false flag” operations in the 20th century are the burning of the
Reichstag (Berlin, 1933);
re.htm], the Lavon Affair (Israel/Egypt 1954)[
conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=193]; and Operation Northwood (USA/Cuba,
previous day.57 The chief mission of the FBI, he said, was to stop another attack and
apprehend any accomplices or terrorists before they hit again. Yet in the same
morning, Ari Fleischer, the White House’s spokesman, announced in a press
conference – citing undisclosed intelligence sources - that “the perpetrators have
executed their plan and, therefore, the risks are significantly reduced”58. How could
the White House know already 24 hours after the events that the risks were
“significantly reduced” unless it had foreknowledge of the terrorists’ plan? It appears
that Ari Fleischer’s statement was too embarrassing for the White House: The
transcript of this particular press conference was removed from the website listing all
White House Press Briefings.59 Only one major media (USA Today) and the website
of the Department of State still maintain a reference to Ari Fleischer’s puzzling
statement.60 This statement did neither elicit questions or further comments by media
nor a retraction from the White House, as one could have expected under the
Four weeks after 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert
Mueller “ordered agents to drop their investigation of the attacks or any other
assignment any time they learn of a threat or lead that might suggest a future
attack.”61 One year after the events there was still no official investigation into
9/11.62 While “investigations into past disasters and attacks such as Pearl Harbor, the
Titanic, the assassination of President Kennedy and the Shuttle Challenger explosion
were established in less than 10 days”,63 President Bush resisted for 411 days before
grudgingly accepting to form a National Commission to investigate the events of
9/11. He did so only after having been allowed to nominate the Chairman and the
Executive Director of the Commission and restrict the Commission’s mandate,
subpoena powers and funding. The Commission based its conclusions, published in
ite Final Report, on assumptions it did not check and did not apparently seek to check,
such as the true identities of the “hijackers” and summaries compiled from reports by
unnamed officials who allegedly interrogated al-Qa’ida leaders at undisclosed
locations, at undisclosed dates and under unknown conditions. The Final Report of
the Commission of Inquiry may accurately been designated as an Omission Report,
57 Bob Woodward and Dan Balz, “We Will Rally the World” [A review of the events of 12
September 2001] Washington Post, 28 January 2002, at
58 White House Morning Briefing by Ari Fleischer 12 September 2001, at 9:57 AM. See, mirrored on
59 White House. Press Briefings by Date, at
60 Jim Drinkard, ”Air Force One, White House were targeted”, USA TODAY, 13 September
2001, at
61 Philip Shenon and David Johnston, “F.B.I. Shifts Focus to Try to Avert Any More Attacks,”
New York Times, 9 October 2001, at, mirrored at
62 See i.e. Patrick Martin, “One year after the terror attacks”, 12 September 2002, Centre for
Research on Globalisation,
63 Citizens critique of flawed 9/11 Commission process, 23 July 2004, at
because its main characterisic is the omission of countless facts and items of evidence
which run counter the official account on 9/11. 64
Fearing that evidence could emerge which would undermine the official account,
some forensic evidence was destroyed. Steel from the collapsed World Trade towers
was sold speedily as scrap metal to China and Korea before experts could examine it
in order to determine the cause of the collapse.65 Evidence that could have helped
explain delays in dispatching fighters to intercept the “hijacked” aircraft was also
intentionally destroyed. 66
Most individuals who have been reported in mass media as sources for facts regarding
the events of 9/11 (witnesses to the crashing of the aircraft and the collapses of the
World Trade towers, employees of the airlines who saw passengers board the aircraft,
family members and friends of crew and passengers who received phone calls from
the aircraft, individuals who were acquainted with the alleged hijackers, etc), cannot
be located. Some of those who can be located appear afraid to say what they know.67
It is thus almost impossible to independently verify testimonies these people may
have given to the FBI or to the media shortly after the events.68 When the U.S.
authorities yielded to repeated demands by 9/11 victims’ relatives to listen to the
recording of the UA93 flight recorder (which was said to contain details on the
passenger’s struggle for control over the aircraft), they were warned not to reveal the
contents of what they hear. They had to sign a non-disclosure agreement and were not
allowed to take notes.69 Similarly, a confidentiality agreement was demanded from
fire officials and relatives in New York before they were allowed to listen to a tape of
emergency radio transmissions between the firefighters in the World Trade towers
and ground personnel.70 In none of these cases were journalists allowed to listen.
In order to further cover up the truth, the U.S. induced relatives of 9/11 victims to
forfeit their legal rights to sue the airlines and the U.S. government (for negligence)
by offering them lavish compensations (on the average $1.8 million for each victim).
64 For a critical discussion of the 9/11 Commission, see particularly David Ray Griffin’s book
“The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions”, Olive Branch Press,
Northampton, Mass. (2005)
65 See, for example, Christopher Bollyn, “The British Knights Who "Cleaned Up 911’”, on
66 Matthew Wald, “Destruction of FAA Tapes”, New York Times, 5/6/2004; Sara Kehaulani
Goo, “FAA Managers Destroyed 9/11 Tapes”, Washington Post, 6 May 2004, mirrored on:
67 Daniel Hopsicker, “FBI ‘harassing and intimidating’ 911 witnesses”,, 12-11.03,
at; also private communications by the author
with two firefighters.
68 We say “may have given to the FBI”, because in many cases media did not cite their sources
or cited anonymous law-enforcement sources. It is impossible to know the exact nature of the
69 Gail Sheehy, “9/11 Tapes Reveal Ground Personnel Muffled Attacks”, New York Observer,
20 June 2004;“Let’s Roll “, Daily Mail, 27 July 2002; Stenvenson Swanson, “Flight 93 Tape
ends doubts for families”, Chicago Tribune, 19 April 2002; “Our loved Ones Died Heroes”,
CBS News, 18 April 2002.
70 “Firefighers reached crash zone”, BBC 4 August 2002, at, also “Feds Withhold Crucial WTC
Evidence“ at
Some relatives declined to accept this “hush money” and are now struggling to have
the truth revealed through the courts.71
According to the CIA, its “officers worked with foreign intelligence services to detain
more than 2,900 al-Qa'ida operatives and associates in over 90 countries” in the
aftermath of 9/11.72 Yet as of May 2005 not a single “al-Qa’ida operative”, or anyone
else, for that matter, has yet been convicted, anywhere, for a 9/11-related offense.73
Two alleged top leaders of al-Qa’ida allegedly in U.S. custody, Khalid Mohammed
Sheikh and Ramzi Binalshibh – designated officially as the planners of the 9/11 crime
- have neither been charged for any crime nor are they allowed to be produced in
court.74 They are kept at undisclosed locations, if they are still living.75 The alleged
leader of al-Qa’ida, Osama bin Laden, designated by U.S. Secretary of State Colin
Powell as the person who “committed these [9/11] acts of murder”,76 has not even
been charged by the U.S. authorities for his alleged part in this crime.77 President
George W. Bush declared on 15 September 2001, regarding Osama bin Laden: “If he
thinks he can hide from the United States and our allies he will be sorely mistaken.”78
On 28 December 2001, the tone has already changed. Bush then said, "Our objective
is more than bin Laden."79 In Bush’s State of the Union speech on January 2002, he
did not even mention Osama bin Laden.80 In March 2002 President Bush, asked in a
press conference why nothing is heard about Osama bin Laden, answered that he’s
“not that concerned about him...He’s just a person who’s now been marginalized”.81
71 “9-11 Widow Beverly Eckert Declares, 'My Silence Cannot Be Bought'”, 27 December 2003;
“9/11 Families Reject 'Bribe,' Sue U.S.”, 27 December 2003; Ellen Mariani Would 'Eat Dirt'
Before Accepting Bush's 9-11 Hush Money, 12 December 2003. September 11 Lawsuits.
72 George J. Tenet, Director of CIA, Testimony Before the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, February 6, 2002: Support to the War on Terrorism and Homeland Security
73 Only one person under U.S. custody, Zacarias Moussaoui, has been charged for 9/11-related
offenses, though not for participating in the plot. His admission of guilt cannot be taken
seriously, because it was obtained by the threat of capital punishment. Two other persons,
who were charged by a German court for 9/11-related offenses, were finally released because
of lack of incriminating evidence and the failure of the U.S. judicial authorities to produce
74 “DOJ Attorney Warns of Immediate and Irreparable Harm to National Security in Arguments
Before Appeals Court, “ CACI - Proud Partner in Homeland Security, at
75 “Top al-Qaeda suspect in US custody”, BBC News, 16 September 2002, at; but see also Paul Thompson, “Is there
more to the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than meets the eye?”, Center for
Cooperative Research, 4 March 2003, at
76 Interview with Colin Powell on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on 23 September 2001, posted on
77 “The Surgeon” (pseudonym): “Osama bin Laden has not been indicted for the attacks of
78 Christopher Newton, “Bush says bin Laden cannot hide, tells troops to prepare”, Associated
Press, 15 September 2001.
79 “Terrorist Attacks Timeline”, Associated Press, 19 August 2002, at
80 President Bush State of the Union address, CNN, 29 January 2002, at
81 See Press Conference by President Bush on 13 March 2002, at
The U.S. administration finally admitted officially that it was not interested in
arresting Osama bin Laden: On 6 April 2002, the Joint Chief of Staff Richard Myers
stated: "The goal has never been to get bin Laden”.82 It appears that the U.S.
administration had never been really interested in catching him.83
Beyond the above facts, which can be easily verified, it is possible to mathematically
prove that the official account on 9/11 cannot be true.84 According to all available
evidence the main suspects are to be found within the U.S. administration, the armed
forces and the intelligence agencies. The implications of this conclusion are so
overwhelming as to cause many to withdraw into mental denial, a natural
psychological mechanism of self-defense. For it is extremely difficult for most people
to face the thought that established institutions, including mass media, are lying to
such an extent and that freely elected public leaders would plan a mass murder of
their own citizens. Yet, the evidence must be squarely faced in order to reveal the full
truth on these terrible events. While there exists yet no “smoking gun” pointing to
particular individuals within the U.S. administration, it is reasonable to include those
who have refused to investigate the mass murder and those who gained by it, among
the main suspects.
On the base of the fabricated account on 9/11, the U.S. administration has succeeded
to induce the American people into accepting increased surveillance,85 increased
defense spending to fight terrorism86 and the shedding of blood in Afghanistan and
Iraq. In addition to long-term strategic advantages for the United States, the crime of
9/11 has greatly benefited American oil and construction companies, the militaryindustrial
complex and the intelligence community. The “New Pearl Harbor”
provided the necessary impetus to speed up the revolutionary process that the ‘secret
government’ of the neo-fascists was calling for. The speed and facility with which
the U.S. administration was able to pursue its long-sought plans on Afghanistan and
Iraq shows that 9/11 was of great utility to American leaders.
Is terrorism a threat to international peace and security?
On October 19, 1999, Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke, United States’
Representative to the United Nations, said at a meeting of the U.N. Security Council:
“International terrorism is one of the most egregious threats to international peace and
security”.87 In that year exactly six (6) U.S. nationals died worldwide from terrorist
acts88 while 2000 inhabitants of Panama died as a result of a terrorist attack by the US
82 Gen. Myers Interview With CNN TV, 6 April 2002, US Department of Defense Website, at
83 Webster Griffin Trapley, “9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in USA”, Progressive Press, Joshua
Tree, Calif. (2005). Albright sabotages extradition of bin Laden by Sudan (pp. 141-144); FBI
told by Bush to back off bin Ladens (pp. 144-5); Le Figaro: Bin Laden treated at American
Hospital [in Dubai], July 2001 (pp. 149-151). Also
84 See, Elias Davidsson, “Simple math demonstrates that the official 9/11 account is a
fabrication,” at
85 See, supra n. 32
86 Americans on Defense Spending and the War on Terrorism, A PIPA/Knowledge Networks
Poll, 2 August 2002, at
87 At
88 See State Department terrorism statistics, at
government. Mr. Holbrooke evidently had not state-terrorism in mind when he made
his statement to the Council. The events of 9/11 permitted the United States to secure
the adoption of Security Council resolutions designating “any act of international
terrorism” as a “threat to international peace and security”, a formulation designed to
open the way for U.N.-authorized use of force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
By resolution 1373 (2001) the Security Council determined that “any act of
international terrorism, constitute[s] a threat to international peace and security.” By
the provisions of this resolution, made with reference to Chapter VII of the UN
Charter, the Council required all states to adopt national measures to combat
terrorism. The Council also established a Counter-Terrorism Committee empowered
to monitor the implementation of these measures and help states to increase their
capability to combat terrorism89.
By Security Council resolution 1456 (2003), the Council designated terrorism as “one
of the most serious threats to peace and security.”90 (Emphasis added).
By designating terrorism as a “threat to international peace and security” let alone as
“one of the most serious” threats, the Security Council implicitly gave member states
a green light to enact measures that are normally only adopted in “states of
emergency”, including derogations from human rights. Ed Herman and David
Peterson capture well the benefit of these Security Council resolutions for numerous
“The ‘war against terrorism’ has given a freer hand to terrorist governments
that are ‘with us,’ like Russia’s but also that of Israel...China has also joined
the fight against terrorism, and is expected to ‘use the international war
against terror for a new crackdown on the Turkic-speaking Uighurs,’...since
September 11 ([...]UPI, October 11, 2001). The new ‘war’ has encouraged
governments across the globe to ask for military support from the United
States to fight their own ‘terrorists,’ and the Bush administration has already
come through with aid to the Philippines and Indonesia in these local
The events of 9/11 have provided oppressive governments a justification to reconsider
the use of torture. The US Department of Justice has endorsed the use of torture when
interrogating “suspected terrorists” who are not U.S. citizens.92 Shipping “terror
suspects” to countries known to use torture in interrogations (designated by the
euphemism “extraordinary rendition”) has been revealed as a covert practice pursued
by various governments, including the USA and Sweden.93 The presumption of
innocence, a cornerstone of civilized law since the Magna Carta, is being turned on its
89 SC Resolution 1373 (2001) at and
Counter Terrorism Committee, at
90 Security Council resolution 1456 (2003), Annex
91 Ed Herman and David Peterson, “The Threat of Global State Terrorism: Retail versus
Wholesale Terrori”, at
92 Mike Allen and Dana Priest, “Memo on Torture Draws Focus to Bush”, Washington Post, 9
June 2004, at
93 David Morgan, U.S. has sent up to 70 terror suspects to Egypt, Reuters, 15 May 2005, at; see also Jane Mayer, “Outsourcing
Torture, the secret history of America’s ‘extraordinary rendition’ program.”, The New Yorker,
14 February 2005, at
head.94 U.S. officials who long before 9/11 had advocated “the expansion of
presidential powers,”95 obtained cause. Imperial rule was duly expanded in the United
States in the form of Presidential Executive Orders96. By one such Executive Order,
the President gave himself power to determine who is to be treated as a “terrorist”97;
by another Executive Order, the President was empowered to “confiscate”98 Iraqi
public assets.99 Secret dockets in the U.S. judicial system have been moreoever
revealed.100 European law-enforcement authorities are beginning to apply anti-terror
legislation to peaceful protestors.101 All these developments, which threaten
fundamental liberties and democratic rights, can be traced to the fraudulent account
on 9/11.
Is terrorism an existential threat to humanity?
The events of 9/11 – as officially presented – led some politicians to equate terrorism
with existential threat to humankind. Senator Richard G. Lugar, for example, asserted
that Americans were now aware that “the United States is exposed to an existential
threat from terrorism”. 102 Canada’s Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, referred to
terrorism as "an existential threat to the whole of the human family” in order to justify
broadened police powers.103 Tony Blair, Britain’s Prime Minister, argued that the
threat of terrorism “defined not by Iraq but by September 11th” is of a “different
nature from anything the world has faced before”104 (emphasis added).
94 Seven states and 378 local or country governments in the US have adopted resolutions
opposing specific parts of the USA PATRIOT Act, "that may infringe on important civil
liberties . . . including presumption of innocence, due process, legal counsel and probable
cause (and) protection from unreasonable searches and seizures." In “Some N.J. towns,
counties are against law”, Asbury Park Press, 21 May 2005, reported by Associated Press, at
95 Jonathan Turley, “Naked power, arbitrary rule”, Los Angeles Times, 21 July 2003, at
96 See Executive Orders Issued by President Bush, web page of the White House,
97 President Issues Military Order: Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in
the War Against Terrorism, White House website, 13 November 2001, at
98 The term “confiscate” is merely a euphemism for an act of outright theft.
99 Executive Order: Confiscating and Vesting Certain Iraqi Property, White House web page, 20
March 2003, at
100 Ann W. O'Neill, “Secret courts, secret dockets, secret arguments, secret imprisonments,”
South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 8 January 2004, at; also David M. Reutter and Paul Wright,
“Secret Court Docket Practice Exposed”, Prison Legal News, December 2003, at; and Bill Mears, “Court declines appeal on 9/11 secrecy”,
CNN, 23 February 2004, at
101 See, Giles Tremlett, “Spain tries Greenpeace five”, The Guardian, 11 May 2005;
“ Greenpeace charged under anti-terror laws”, 11 may 2005, at
102 U.S.-NATO Missions Annual Conference, Brussels, Belgium, January 19, 2002 NATO's
Role in the War on Terrorism, By Senator Richard G. Lugar
103 Ian Macleod, The Ottawa Citizen, December 11, 2004, mirrored at
104 In a speech in his Sedgefield constituency. Source: The Guardian, Friday March 5, 2004,12956,1162991,00.html
The elusive nature of terrorism allows creative minds to fantasize about its threat. The
scenario of Muslim terrorists getting hold of a nuclear device is widely used as a scare
to justify radical law-enforcement measures against individuals and states.105 While
there is no evidence that any “terrorist organization” has acquired weapons of mass
destruction, or is capable to handle such weapons, it is theoretically possible that a
secret terrorist group could purchase nuclear devices on the black market. Delivering
such a device against a population is, however, not within the capabilities of
clandestine, non-state groups. Only a handful of governments possess the means to
deliver nuclear devices to their targets. Experts are divided regarding the ability of
ordinary criminals, such as terrorists, to endanger by artisanal means a large number
of people, let alone a whole population.
The main threat for international peace and security remains, as ever, state terrorism,
such as massive bombing campaigns, ethnical cleansing, economic coercion against
whole nations, military occupation, the maintenance of large stocks of nuclear
weapons and the militarization of space, all of which threaten the existence of human
The threat of terrorism: Myth and reality
When international organizations designate terrorism as a “threat to international
peace and security” or as an “existential threat to civilization”, they really mean
“retail terrorism”, not “state terrorism”. One would assume that those who claim that
“retail terrorism” threatens international peace and security would support their
claims with hard evidence, such as statistics on the harmful consequences of such
It is therefore puzzling that no declaration or resolution by the United Nations,
NATO, the European Union or other international organisations, mentions the actual
harm from terrorism106. The answer to this mystery is simple: The number of
casualties from (retail) terrorism is so small, compared to that of other causes, that the
release of such figures would expose the “war on terrorism” as a fraud.
According to the report Patterns of International Terrorism 2003, issued by the US
Department of State on April 2004,107 exactly thirty-five (35) American citizens died
from international (retail) terrorism worldwide in 2003. They were killed in the
following countries: Kuwait (1); Colombia (1); Philippines (1); Israel (10);
Palestinian occupied territories (6); Saudi Arabia (9); Iraq (5); Afghanistan (2) No
U.S. citizen died in 2003 as a result of international (retail) terrorism in Europe,
105 Examples: “Al-Qaeda nuclear plans confirmed”, BBC, 16 November 2001, “Al Qaeda
documents outline serious weapons program “, CNN, 25 January 2002; “Al-Qaeda 'was
making dirty bomb'”, BBC, 31 January 2003; Bill Gertz, “Reports reveal Zarqawi nuclear
threat”, Washington Times, 20 April 2005. None of these stories could be independently
106 While the tangible effects of terrorism can be measured in terms of damage to material goods
and direct harm to body and limb (and are objective indicator of harm) the psychological
effects of terrorist acts cannot be attributed to the perpetrators. These are the result of media
coverage of such acts.
107 Webpage of the U.S. Department of State:
Africa, Australia and North America. In that same year, 16,503 persons were
murdered in the U.S. alone,108 apparently too few to cause international concern.
The number of US casualties of international (retail) terrorism in previous years was:
1998 (12); 1999 (6); 2000 (23); 2001 (2689 – a figure based on the disputed
assumption that the events of 9/11 were acts of international terrorism); 2002 (27).
European casualties of international (retail) terrorism are equally numbered in dozens
a year.109
The above figures show that, in terms of lost human lives, neither the U.S. nor
European governments can honestly claim that non-state terrorism represents a
serious threat for their own citizens. Their claim is not merely preposterous; it is a
blatant misrepresentation. Ordinary criminal law is fully adequate to deal with violent
acts, such as bombing, hostage taking and killings, regardless of motive. The fact that
the yearly U.S. federal budget for the fight against terrorism exceeded already $ 8
billion before the events of 9/11 – when the number of American victims of terrorism
could be counted on one’s fingers110 – demonstrates that this “fight” was not impelled
by a real threat.
Even the global number of persons dying from terrorist acts cannot justify the claim
that international (retail) terrorism constitutes a threat to international peace and
security. According to the statistical database of the U.S. Department of State
(referred to above), the number of worldwide fatal casualties of terrorism, all
nationalities combined, was the following:
Year Number of fatal casualties
2000 2,494
2001 4,379 (assuming that the 9/11 mass murder was, as claimed, an act of
international terrorism)
2002 2,723 (source:
2003 2,385 (source:
To put casualty figures from retail terrorism into a global perspective, one could
mention that about 10,500,000 children die yearly of preventable causes111 (or the
equivalent of ten 9/11 tragedies every single day). This staggering number of child
deaths, merely a symptom of an acute social and political pathology that nourishes
threats to international peace and security, does not appear to sufficiently shock the
conscience of U.N. Security Council members into acting to end this yearly
Holocaust. The Security Council has never designated extreme poverty, the lack of
drinking water and massive child mortality as threats to international peace and
While the U.N. Security Council, dominated by the big powers, lists terrorism as one
of the most serious threats to international peace and security, the Organisation of
108 National Center for Victims of Crime Website, at
109 Webpage of the U.S. Department of State:
110 See, supra.
111 World Health Organization: Surviving the first five years of life, at
American States (OAS), in their Declaration on Security in the Americas of 28
October 2003, refrains from contrived hysteria. The Declaration mentions terrorism as
only one of manifold “security threats...affecting the states of the hemisphere,” along
with “transnational organized crime, the global drug problem, corruption, asset
laundering, illicit trafficking in weapons... extreme poverty and social exclusion of
broad sectors of the population... natural and man-made disasters, HIV/AIDS and
other diseases, other health risks, and environmental degradation; trafficking in
persons; attacks to cyber security; maritime transport of potentially hazardous
materials, including petroleum and radioactive materials and toxic waste; access,
possession, and use of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery by
It should be emphasized that the above terrorism statistics only cover “retail
terrorism”, namely the commission of terrorist acts by disparate, non-state groups and
individuals with limited resources. Victims of “wholesale terrorism” (state terrorism)
i.e. organized attacks by government forces, aimed to demoralize or coerce a
population, are not counted as terrorism but as ordinary state policies,113 even if their
harmful consequences exceed by far all acts of retail terrorism.114
We have demonstrated that the “war on terrorism” is a convenient and fraudulent
cover for governments aiming to increase mass surveillance. The fraudulent “war on
terrorism” is based on another fraud, namely that the events of 9/11 were an act of
“international terrorism” rather than mass murder whose perpetrators have not yet
been identified and prosecuted. It is imperative for the international community to
determine the source of the mass murder committed on 9/11, for if it is true – as is
increasingly been claimed by keen students of the 9/11 issue - that the crime was
planned and executed by the U.S. government or at its behest, the chances for
containing US global hegemony would increase.
Part of the challenge facing the international community in general, and the
democratic movement in particular, is how to deal with a situation in which the
majority of states appear to collude in deceiving world public opinion on a nonexisting
threat, using this myth as a means to stifle opposition and covering up one of
the most egregious contemporary crimes.
Attempts to uncover the truth on the events of 9/11 through judicial means have not
been successful. American courts regularly defer to government claims that it cannot
disclose evidence because of security considerations or in order not to interfere with
112 OAS Declaration on Security in the Americas, Doc. No. OEA/Ser.K/XXXVIII, 28 October
2003, at
113 A number of countries, though particularly the United States and Israel, oppose the inclusion
of ‘state terrorism’ into a draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism
proposed by India. See, Siddharth Varadarajan, “UN Terror Draft to Oulaw Israeli Strikes”,
Time News Network, January 2002, at
114 A particularly egregious case is that of the U.N. sanctions against Iraq which were intended to
create hardship for the Iraqi population as a means of coercion and which caused the deaths of
over half a million children. See writings on economic sanctions and the Iraq sanctions at
investigations. Most families of 9/11 victims have been induced by financial rewards
to forfeit their right to the truth. Only a handful of victims declined the money and
chose to challenge the U.S. authorities before the courts. But even these courageous
few are been pressurized to withdraw their cases and face innumerable procedural
hurdles before their cases could reach the merit stage, if at all.
No international forum has jurisdiction over the crime of 9/11 because the United
States, on the soil of which this crime against humanity was committed, is not a party
to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and will certainly not
cooperate with the Court in investigating the crime.
In order to strengthen international solidarity against the emergence of a new
totalitarian order under U.S. leadership, the following recommendations are made:
1. Civil society should be mobilized to demand a full and truthful account of the
mass murder of 9/11 as well as the trial and punishment of those who instigated,
planned and committed this monstrous crime. Those who assisted in covering up the
crime should equally be identified and punished.
2. The creation and maintenance of terrorism scares should be designated as a
criminal offense, regardless of the status of the offender.
3. Peoples’ tribunals, representing civil society (trade unions, organized religion,
grass-root associations, human rights organizations, etc.) acting in accordance with
established norms of due process and human rights, should be empowered by their
constituency to issue enforceable judgments against individuals found guilty of war
crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression, if no effective recourse is
available in the legal system established by national states.