Shortly after the events of 9/11, the Bush administration announced a “War on Terrorism”, and within weeks, Americans saw many of their constitutional guarantees of freedom stripped away by the USA Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act with their plethora of legislative changes which significantly increased the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the United States.
These Acts did not, however, provide for the system of checks and balances that traditionally safeguards civil liberties in the face of such legislation. Many of the provisions of these tyrannical Acts relating to electronic surveillance were actually proposed before September 11th, and were subject to much criticism and debate. Following 9/11, criticism and debate was squelched in favor of “protecting America.”
This document, Summary and Analysis of Key Sections of USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001, tries in as compact a manner as possible to summarize those portions of the “USA Patriot Act of 2001” (hereafter “the Act” or “the Patriot Act”) of interest to Internet companies, Internet service providers, and telecommunications carriers. Therefore, we are primarily interested in the responsibilities and immunities that the Patriot Act provides for various providers. There are important sections of the Act that we do not discuss because they are related to internal governmental issues, immigration law issues, or other issues beyond the scope of this memo. Nor do we evaluate here the constitutionality or wisdom of policy choices reflected in any part of this bill.
Was 9/11 an Inside Job?
How fortunate for the U.S. government that just when they are planning to invade another country, for the express purpose of removing that government, a convenient “terrorist” attack occurs to anger Americans into support for an invasion. “To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11.” Tony Blair. July 17, 2002 [Guardian]
“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”. – Josef Stalin
While I don’t believe that the United States government as a whole was behind the 9/11 catastrophe, I do believe the evidence shows there was a small subset of powerful and influential people within the U.S. government (the deep state) orchestrating the event.
Whether the U.S. government had any direct involvement, the evidence shows US authorities certainly did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested. It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with airplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that “al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House”.
Project for the New American Century
While Americans were freely giving up many of their Constitutional rights in exchange for so-called “security” and now needing a scapegoat to rationalize their loss, President Bush moved to the next stage of the globalist New World Order agenda.
Rebuilding America’s Defenses
President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure ‘regime change’ long before the events of 9/11 and even before he took power in January 2001.
The Rebuilding America’s Defenses was written in September 2000, a year earlier than the 9/11 attack, by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Drawn up for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and others, the New World Order plan shows Bush’s cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power.
It says: ‘The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.’
Download and read the Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century document for yourself.
THE BIBLE ON the men of dark intentions
The Republican Party’s campaign platform in the U.S. presidential election, 2000 called for “full implementation” of the Iraq Liberation Act and removal of Saddam Hussein with a focus on rebuilding a coalition, tougher sanctions, reinstating inspections, and support for the pro-democracy, opposition exile group, Iraqi National Congress.
It has hence been learned that once elected, President Bush engaged the Department of Defense to begin a years-long secret domestic propaganda campaign to promote the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The mission of this program placed it within the field controlled by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a White House task-force formed in August 2002 to market an invasion of Iraq to the American people. The group included Karl Rove, I. Lewis Libby, Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, Stephen Hadley, Nicholas E. Calio, and James R. Wilkinson.
The WHIG organized a media blitz in which, between September 7-8, 2002, President Bush and his top advisers appeared on numerous interviews and all provided gripping images about the possibility of nuclear attack by Iraq. The timing was no coincidence, as Andrew Card explained in an interview regarding waiting until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq, “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”
The Bush government executed a calculated and wide-ranging strategy to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States into believing that there was and is a connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein on the one hand, and the attacks of September 11, 2001 and al Qaeda, on the other hand, so as to falsely justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq as well as to fraudulently obtain and maintain congressional authorization and funding for the use of such military force against Iraq.
As strange as it might sound,
the U.S. created the enemies that attacked America on 9-11.
Why Is The U.S. Supporting Al Qaeda In Syria?
The U.S. government trained, armed, funded and supported Osama bin Laden and his followers in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted that President Carter authorized the covert sponsorship of Muslim extremists, thus creating the mujahadeen and Al Qeada in Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight against Soviet aggression. In Afghanistan and then in Bosnia, the U.S. sponsored Muslim terror even as the State Department was officially condemning it.
In 2012, the Obama administration Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton approved $1.3 billion in military aid in the form of F-16 fighter jets, M1 tanks, and similar weaponry to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Senator Rand Paul said, “I think it is a blunder of the first proportion to send sophisticated weapons to a country that allowed a mob to attack our embassy and to burn our flag. I find it objectionable to send weapons, F-16s and tanks to a country that allowed a mob chanting ‘death to America’ to threaten our American diplomats.” Paul also stated that “these weapons threaten Israel’s security” and “someday may be used against Israel.”
The United States has also been supporting al Qeada affiliates in the Libyan civil war and Syrian civil war. While the Obama Administration has been very open about their support for the rebels, they apparently went to great lengths to cover up the arms shipments to al Qeada groups in Syria when it issued stand down orders to prevent the murders of four American citizens, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens in it’s Benghazi consulate. The New York Times reported that since early 2012, the CIA has been aiding Arab governments and Turkey in obtaining and shipping weapons to the Syrian rebels. Days after the Benghazi attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, WND broke the story that Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian and other Middle Eastern security officials.
During an interview with CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, radio talk show host John Baxter said “Benghazi is not about Libya, Benghazi is about the policy of the Obama administration to involve the United States without clarity to the American people, not only in Libya but throughout the whole of the Arab world now in turmoil,” Baxter told Kudlow. “Benghazi is about the NSC directing an operation that is perhaps shadowy, perhaps has a presidential finding, perhaps doesn’t, that takes arms and men and puts them into Syria in the guise of the Free Syria Army.”
Paul Mulshine of The Star Ledger asks, “Do you support the call by John McCain and Lindsey Graham for the U.S. to intervene on the side of the rebels in Syria? Congratulations! You’re on the same side as the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.” The Muslim Brotherhood has been trying to overthrow the Assad regime since 1982 and joined with Al Qaeda to put together such operations as the Sept. 11 attack on New York. And now they’re trying to take over Syria with the support of the United States.
Senator Rand Paul said of McCain’s visit with Syrian rebels, “People say, ‘Assd is such a bad guy.’ He is. But on the other side we have alQaeda and now Nusra. So there’s two ironies you have to overcome if you want to get involved in a war in Syria,” he continued. “The first irony is you will be allied with al Qaeda. The second irony is most of the Christians are on the other side, so you may be arming Islamic rebels who may well be killing Christians. Does that make Assad a good person? No. I don’t think there are any good people in this war, and there are some tragically innocent people who are going to be caught in the middle. But I just don’t know that arming one side is going to make the tragedy any less.”
Jackson Browne Lives In the Balance
Weapons of Mass Destruction
The WHIG produced white papers detailing so-called intelligence of Iraq’s nuclear threat that later proved to be false. This supposed intelligence included the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger as well as the claim that the high strength aluminum tubes Iraq purchased from China were to be used for the sole purpose of building centrifuges to enrich uranium. Unlike the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, the WHIG’s white papers provided “gripping images and stories” and used “literary license” with intelligence.
Whipping up fear into Americans once again, President George W. Bush and Tony Blair invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003, under the guise of eliminating weapons of mass destruction.
While NONE were found, both Bush and Blair continued their charge that WMD existed with the fervor that would make Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf proud. Why would Bush and Blair insist Iraq had these weapons of mass destruction? Because we sold them to Sadam Hussain and never expected him to be smart enough to dispose of them before we invaded.
Long before the March 19, 2003 invasion of Iraq, a wealth of intelligence informed the President and those under his direction and control that Iraq’s stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons had been destroyed well before 1998 and that there was little, if any, credible intelligence that showed otherwise. In September 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency issued a report that concluded: “A substantial amount of Iraq’s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM actions…[T]here is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has-or will-establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.” Notwithstanding the absence of evidence proving that such stockpiles existed and in direct contradiction to substantial evidence that showed they did not exist, the President and his subordinates and agents made numerous false representations claiming with certainty that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons that it was developing to use to attack the United States.
On 1 May 2003 George W. Bush announced the end of “Major combat” operations in the Iraq war, yet that did not mean that peace had returned to Iraq. “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.” (Speech of President Bush on U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.)
Iraq has been subsequently marked by violent conflict between U.S.-led soldiers and forces described as insurgents, including but not limited to violence between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims within Iraq over long-standing cultural differences.
Defeat the Taleban – Control the Oil
President Bush had also planned to attack Afganistan months before the 9/11 attacks in America. The media in India was reporting in the summer of 2001 the Indian Government’s announcement that it would support America’s PLANNED military incursion into Afghanistan.
- 26 June 2001: “India and Iran will “facilitate” US and Russian plans for “limited military action” against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime.”
- In a Sept. 18, 2001 story published by the BBC, “A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week’s attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks.”
- In a May 16, 2002 story published on MSNBC, Jim Miklaszewski and Alex Johnson reported, “President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News. The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a “game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth,” one of the sources told NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski. “The couching of the plans as a formal security directive is significant, Miklaszewski reported, because it indicates that the United States intended a full-scale assault on al-Qaida even if the Sept. 11 attacks had not occurred.”
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world’s oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. A report from the commission on America’s national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. (Michael Meacher, UK environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003)
A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that “the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to… the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East”. Submitted to Vice-President Cheney’s energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, “military intervention” was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).
Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban’s refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them “either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs” (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).
In 1998, “as a result of sharply deteriorating political conditions in the region, Unocal (now owned by Chevron), which serves as the development manager for the Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline consortium, has suspended all activities involving the proposed pipeline project in Afghanistan. In his testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb 12, 1998, Mr. John J. Maresca, vice president of international relations, Unocal Corporation, said “One obvious route (for an oil pipeline) south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.”
- On Oct. 7, 2001, President Bush said the United States opened a new front in the war against international terrorism Sunday with its attacks on Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban and al Qaeda terrorist camps. (CNN.com)
- On June 13, 2002, Former UNOCAL Consultant Hamid Karzai Elected as New Afghan Leader .
- On December 27, 2002, an agreement was signed in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, paving the way for construction of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian republic through Afghanistan to Pakistan.