For a decade, the main questions about 9/11 have gone unanswered while the alleged perpetrators who survived the attacks have never been publicly cross-examined as to their methods and motives. It is not conspiratorial but rather obviously plausible to suggest that they have been kept out of sight because legal due process, constitutionally guaranteed to even the most heinous of criminals, might provide information that our government would find embarrassing.
We remain in ignorance as to what drove religious zealots formerly allied with the United States to turn against us, and what was the role of our ally, Saudi Arabia, the country of origin for most of the hijackers and their financing. Why in the aftermath of the attack did the United States embrace Pakistan, which was one of only three governments (Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were the others) to diplomatically recognize the Taliban and which turned out to be harboring the fugitive Osama bin Laden? And why did we instead invade Iraq, a nation known to be engaged in a deadly war with bin Laden and his al-Qaeda?
How little we know about the origins of the Sept. 11 attacks is laid out in the disclaimer on Page 146 of the official 9/11 presidential commission report. A box on that page states clearly that the conventional narrative of how those portentous events unfolded is based largely on the interrogation under torture of key witnesses who have never been permitted a single moment in a publicly observed court of law.
As the bipartisan commissioners ruefully conceded, their examination of the motives, financing and actions of the alleged 9/11 perpetrators had to "rely heavily on information from captured al Qaeda members" that the commissioners, despite having been granted the highest security clearance, were never allowed to seriously vet:
"We submitted questions for use in the interrogations but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process."
That sensitive interrogation process included the waterboarding of the key witnesses, led by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was scheduled to go on public, civilian trial in Manhattan last spring, until the Obama administration caved in to hysterical Republican-led pressure and called off the trial.
The fear of a public trial is apparently that it will be an occasion to humanize the presumed perpetrators of barbaric acts, but by that standard no alleged murderer should ever be tried in civilian court. The counterargument is that we as a society have, from the drafting of our Constitution, been committed to due process of law. But an even more compelling objection to the present secrecy flows not from the inalienable rights of the accused to justice but rather from the need to fully inform the public as to the dangers faced by our society.
Major policy developments, including two undeclared wars, were conducted in the name of defeating the perpetrators of 9/11 without the pubic being made aware of the relevant facts. Surely a public trial would have revealed, to the deep embarrassment of the Bush administration, that there was no connection between the 9/11 hijackers and the government of Iraq that the United States overthrew.
At the very least, such testimony would have shed light on the cozy relationship between the U.S. government and the key leaders of al-Qaeda, particularly the American-educated Mohammed, recruited by the CIA to join the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It certainly could also have proved embarrassing to former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who, during the Bush administration, opposed public trials and managed last March to get President Barack Obama to reverse his pledge of civilian trials. Gates boasted in his 1996 memoir of his long history of working with Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, dating to his days in the Carter administration. As his book publisher bragged at the time, Gates exposed "Carter's never-before revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen -- six months before the Soviets invaded."
Of course 9/11 changed everything; nations were invaded, trillions of dollars were wasted, hundreds of thousands of civilian and military lives were lost, torture became acceptable and the public has come to tolerate a daily governmental assault on privacy as normal. But for all of the high drama and cost of the U.S. response, when it comes to understanding the forces behind the attack, we still do not know what we are talking about.
Rabbi Michael M. Cohen: 10 Years Later, We Must Do Better
Really?!!!
Let us refresh our memories
Fact: On Sept. 11 2001. a group of Islamist extremists hijacked 4 planes, killed thousands of innocent Americans and caused billions of dollars in damage.
Said extremists were.
American Airlines Flight 11
Hijackers:Mohamed Atta, Waleed al-Shehri, Wail al-Shehri, Abdulaziz al-Omari, Satam al-Suqami.
United Airlines Flight 175
Hijackers: Marwan al-Shehhi, Fayez Banihammad, Mohand al-Shehri, Hamza al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Ghamdi
American Airlines Flight 77
Hijackers:Hani Hanjour, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi.
United Airlines Flight 93
Hijackers: Ziad Jarrah, Ahmed al-Haznawi, Ahmed al-Nami, Saeed al-Ghamdi.
Glad to help.
Wrong.
The fear was that if this self-confessed 9.11 organizer goes free, Obama's chances fro reelection goes from 50% to zero.
In the weeks to follow, law enforcement agents not only discovered the home was visited by vehicles used by the hijackers, but phone calls were linked between the home and those who carried out the death flights — including leader Mohamed Atta — in discoveries never before revealed to the public.
Though that is not why they attacked. If I remember correctly OBL considered the American forces in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as invading forces that should leave. He didn't like the US support to Israel either. OBL didn't recognize the governments of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as Islamic or representative of the muslim people either. Under such circumstances it was easy to find islamic scriptures that gave him the right to attack Islams enemies.
On the other hand the actions of the US were least to say not mature or well thought out in my opinion. They reflected the interest of big corporates and big money.
Bottom line grow up, man up and stop the political correctness stupidity.
I sincerely hope that the "they" you refer to here are the Leaders and not
the populace. In spite of their Leaders, they do envy our freedoms and want
the same freedoms for themselves. And, of course, "Leaders" seem to have
one main focus, to Stay in control. I experienced that right here in the USA,
in my childhood church of all places!
Google: Thomas Jefferson, Barbary pirates, Ambassador to Tripoli, or maybe The Shores of Tripoli. Find Jefferson's quote presented before a joint session of Congress when he was still an ambassador. Jefferson had asked the Ambassador to Tripoli why they hated this new country, captured our merchant ships, and enslaved or killed our crews.
The ambassador's response to Jefferson shocked him. The honesty of the ambassador's statement would explain a lot to Mr. Scheer; you see, this question was asked over 200 years ago, and the answer has not changed much since.
“that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
The one thing most glaring in all of this, to me, is that an enormous number of people continually
'live in the past', trying today to right the perceived wrongs that occurred back then. What isn't
so obvious is that such a view means that one is held captive to the past and can't move forward until they are satisfied with an 'eye-for-an-eye' solution. How pitiful a life that is, to live in the present but being a prisoner to the past.
The unquestioning support for Israel was, of course, nothing to do with it.
Portrayal of ideas is not the same as promotion of ideas. And calling what I wrote "Repug. damage control B.S." is unhelpful and emptily hostile.
Finally, as to your assessment of the political climate at the time of our invasion-- whose? Iran's? If so, the word that might best characterize it is 'oppressed'.
Ours? If so, the word that might best describe it is 'hysterical.'
The deep unhappiness of Iranians educated in the US may be real, but their antipathy to foreign incursion outweighed it, and does so till the present day.
- Whose fault is it?
This decade was probably the worst in American history mainly because of bad leadership and greed. It is also very unfortunate that your actions are effecting the whole world negatively, and sadly ... continuously.
Time for the American people to man up grow some B**s take matters into their hands and investigate the actions of their superiors and influential elite. They didn't just bankrupt the US but ruined the world.
If you think you have won the war on terror think again... few hundreds cave men got you where you are today and the fight is still as lethal as ever. Meanwhile you have lost your prosperity and way of life.
whose got the bill ...?
May God Allah Jehovah and especially Darwin have mercy on us.