BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

Canadian Professor disputes official representation on 9/11

Sunday, March 25th, 2007

Paul Chen

David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement. This is by virtue of his previous four books on the subject. Professor Griffin and a growing list of scholars, other researchers as well as diverse experts and activists, reject the official Islamist mastermind conspiracy theory about 9/11 advanced by Establishment interests.
Although the 9/11 truth movement was long ignored by the U.S. government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become “a mainstream political phenomenon.”

It is not surprising, therefore, that the U.S. government and the Big Business controlled media have shifted tactics. No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it.

In David Ray Griffin’s new book entitled Debunking 9/11, shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked.

“Debunking 9/11 is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies. Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods,” says Bill Christison, former senior official of the CIA.

Mr. Christison further indicates that, “This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen.”

Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of “Debunking 9/11 Myths” (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Professor Griffin critically challenges recent reports and stories put out by the US Department of State, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, and Time magazine.

Professor Griffin also responds to criticisms of these efforts by left-leaning and Christian publications — which one might have expected to be supportive.

Throughout these critiques, Griffin shows that the charge that is regularly levelled against critics of the official theory — that they employ irrational and unscientific methods to defend conclusions based on faith — actually applies more fully to those who defend the official theory.

“Considering how the 9/11 tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin’s provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed,” says Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States.

“Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics,” says Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury during the Reagan administration.

“David Ray Griffin hits another one out of the park by taking on the left gatekeepers and the mass media for the lies and cover-up called ‘the official story of 9/11/01,’ which is the greatest conspiracy theory ever perpetrated on the American public. I highly recommend this book for all thinking Americans,” further indicates Meria Heller, Producer Host of the Meria Heller Show (www.meria.net).

This book, by debunking the most prevalent attempts to refute the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement, shows that this movement’s central claim — that 9/11 was an inside job — remains the only explanation that fits the facts.

About the Author

David Ray Griffin is professor of philosophy of religion and theology, emeritus, at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California, where he remains a co-director of the Center for Process Studies. His 30 books include The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), 9/11 and American Empire (2006, ed. with Peter Dale Scott), and Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11 (2006)

Have Your Say: Canadian Professor disputes official representation on 9/11
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Sailors admitted incursion - Iran

Sunday, March 25th, 2007

BBC

Royal Navy personnel seized at gunpoint by Iran in the Gulf have admitted being in the country’s waters, an Iranian general has claimed.

Gen Ali Reza Afshar told Iranian media the 15 personnel were being interrogated, but were in good health.

Sailors admitted incursion - Iran

The Foreign Office could not say where the group was being held. It insists they had not been in Iranian waters.

Earlier, minister Lord Triesman met with the Iranian ambassador in London to demand their immediate release.

In the hour-long meeting, Lord Triesman also sought assurances about the group’s welfare and asked that they are seen by consular staff.

Britain’s UN ambassador, Sir Emyr Jones Parry, told BBC World TV that he had hoped to raise the matter with Iran’s foreign minister at the UN on Saturday, but was prevented by the Security Council’s debate over Iran’s nuclear programme.

‘Approach him’

Sir Emyr said: “I would have wished very much to have had the opportunity to approach the foreign minister and simply ask for the release of those sailors.

“Unfortunately, he allowed the debate to continue for 90 minutes before he joined us. He then assailed us for 40 minutes and then left before anyone else, and was shepherded out of the building.”

Iran’s Fars news agency earlier said the group of sailors, which includes one woman, was flown to Tehran, arriving in the capital at 1200 local time (0830 GMT).

But that report was later withdrawn from the agency’s website.

Meanwhile, the German presidency of the European Union has demanded the immediate release of the personnel.

The 15 were seized on Friday after boarding a boat in the Gulf.

They were from HMS Cornwall, based in Plymouth - the flagship of the coalition-Iraqi force which patrols Iraqi territorial waters in the northern Gulf to combat smuggling.

They had inspected an Iraqi boat before returning to their two small boats where they were seized before being moved along the Shatt al-Arab waterway to Iranian bases.

The British task force commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said there had been no evidence of fighting.

Lord Triesman’s meeting with ambassador Rasoul Movahedian followed a meeting on Friday between Ibrahim Rahimpour, Iran’s director general for Western European affairs, and the UK’s charge d’affaires, Kate Smith, in Tehran.

Former Royal Navy head Admiral Sir Alan West dismissed suggestions the British boats had strayed into Iranian waters.

Sir Alan was first sea lord in 2004 when Iran detained eight British servicemen for three days after they allegedly strayed over the maritime border.

The men were paraded blindfolded and made to apologise on Iranian TV before their release was agreed.

Sir Alan told BBC News that tracking systems then had proven that the servicemen had been in Iraqi waters.

“They can do lots of smokescreens and things like that but I am absolutely clear in my mind it would have been in our waters,” he said.

The Ministry of Defence has been in contact with relatives of the group.

The seizure follows claims that much of the violence against UK forces in Basra is being engineered by Iranian elements, which Tehran denies.

Have Your Say: Sailors admitted incursion - Iran
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

FEMA was in New York the Night Before 9/11

Sunday, March 25th, 2007

In early 2001, at the start of Mr. Bush’s presidency, his Government’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) warned that a hurricane hitting New Orleans would be the deadliest of the three most likely catastrophes facing America; the others were a massive San Francisco earthquake and, prophetically, a terrorist attack on New York.

Go here for the rest of the article…

Have Your Say: FEMA was in New York the Night Before 9/11
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Gonzales, Cheney Blocked Appeals to Close Guantanamo

Sunday, March 25th, 2007

THOM SHANKER and DAVID E. SANGER

In his first weeks as defense secretary, Robert M. Gates repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantánamo would be viewed as illegitimate, according to senior administration officials. He told President Bush and others that it should be shut down as quickly as possible.

Mr. Gates’s appeal was an effort to turn Mr. Bush’s publicly stated desire to close Guantánamo into a specific plan for action, the officials said. In particular, Mr. Gates urged that trials of terrorism suspects be moved to the United States, both to make them more credible and because Guantánamo’s continued existence hampered the broader war effort, administration officials said.

Mr. Gates’s arguments were rejected after Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and some other government lawyers expressed strong objections to moving detainees to the United States, a stance that was backed by the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, administration officials said.

As Mr. Gates was making his case, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice joined him in urging that the detention facility be shut down, administration officials said. But the high-level discussions about closing Guantánamo came to a halt after Mr. Bush rejected the approach, although officials at the National Security Council, the Pentagon and the State Department continue to analyze options for the detention of terrorism suspects.

The base at Guantánamo holds about 385 prisoners, among them 14 senior leaders of Al Qaeda, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who were transferred to it last year from secret prisons run by the Central Intelligence Agency. Under the Pentagon’s current plans, some prisoners, including Mr. Mohammed, will face war crimes charges under military trials that could begin later this year.

“The policy remains unchanged,” said Gordon D. Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

Even so, one senior administration official who favors the closing of the facility said the battle might be renewed.

“Let’s see what happens to Gonzales,” that official said, referring to speculation that Mr. Gonzales will be forced to step down, or at least is significantly weakened, because of the political uproar over the dismissal of United States attorneys. “I suspect this one isn’t over yet.”

Details of the internal discussions on Guantánamo were described by senior officials from three departments or agencies of the executive branch, including officials who support moving rapidly to close Guantánamo and those who do not. One official made it clear that he was willing to discuss the internal deliberations in part because of Mr. Gonzales’s current political weakness. The senior officials discussed the issue on ground rules of anonymity because it entailed confidential conversations.

The officials said Mr. Gates and Ms. Rice expressed their concerns about Guantánamo in conversations with Mr. Bush and others, including Mr. Gonzales, beginning in January and onward. One widely discussed alternative would move the prisoners to military brigs in the United States, where they would remain in the custody of the Pentagon and would be subject to trial under military proceedings. There is widespread agreement, however, that moving any detainees or legal proceedings to American territory could bring significant complications.

Some administration lawyers are deeply reluctant to move terrorism suspects to American soil because it could increase their constitutional and statutory rights — and invite an explosion of civil litigation. Guantánamo was chosen because it was an American military facility but not on American soil.

Placing the detainees in military brigs on United States territory might fend off some of those challenges. The solution may eventually require a new act of Congress establishing legal standing for the detainees and new rules for their trial and incarceration if brought to the United States.

Mr. Gates’s criticism of Guantánamo marks a sharply different approach than the one taken by his predecessor, Donald H. Rumsfeld. It also demonstrated a new dynamic in the administration, in which Mr. Gates was teaming up with Ms. Rice, who often was at loggerheads with Mr. Rumsfeld. The State Department has long been concerned about the adverse foreign-policy impact of housing prisoners at Guantánamo.

In the end, Mr. Gates did succeed in killing plans to build a $100 million courthouse and detention complex at Guantánamo, after he argued that the large and expensive project would leave the impression of a long-lasting American detainee operation there and that the money could be more effectively spent elsewhere by the Pentagon. Mr. Gates approved a far more modest facility at one-tenth of the cost.

The setback in his effort to close Guantánamo was described by senior Pentagon officials as Mr. Gates’s only significant failure during an effort in his first three months in office to shift course from policies pursued by Mr. Rumsfeld. The outcome suggests that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Gonzales remain committed to a detention plan that has become one of the most controversial elements of the administration’s counterterrorism program.

Mr. Cheney’s spokeswoman, Lee Anne McBride, said via e-mail that “we don’t discuss internal deliberations.”

Mr. Bush has repeatedly said he ultimately wants to shutter the detention operations at Guantánamo. But he has also said it is not possible to do so any time soon.

State Department and Pentagon officials have said that even close allies are uncomfortable with American policies toward Guantánamo, making it more difficult in some cases to coordinate efforts in counterterrorism, intelligence and law enforcement.

More than 390 detainees have been transferred abroad from the Guantánamo facility since it was opened amid global controversy in 2002. Last year, 111 detainees were transferred out, and 12 more have been this year. About 20 of those repatriated to home countries have been picked up again in sweeps of terrorism suspects or have been killed or captured in battle, Pentagon officials say.

Many countries do not want to take back the detainees held at Guantánamo. Some home nations will not guarantee that returning detainees would be assured humane treatment and fair trials, while others will not guarantee that detainees viewed by American officials as still dangerous would not be set free.

Mr. Gates’s challenge has sent a ripple through the White House, because it forced officials to confront the question of whether Mr. Bush was actually moving to fulfill his stated desire to close the detention facility. Officials who advocate shutting down Guantánamo, including some at the Pentagon and the State Department, said an underlying motivation of those who want to keep the center open is that closing it would be seen as a public admission of an incorrect policy — something the Bush administration is loath to do.

Neither Mr. Gates nor Ms. Rice have made public their comments to Mr. Bush. “Nobody is going to be insubordinate with the president,” said one senior administration official involved in the discussions. “You know the saying: ‘One war, one team.’ ”

But in a recent Pentagon news conference, Mr. Gates did speak about his concerns over Guantánamo in general terms.

“I think that Guantánamo has become symbolic, whether we like it or not, for many around the world,” Mr. Gates said at the time. “The problem is that we have a certain number of the detainees there who often by their own confessions are people who if released would come back to attack the United States. There are others that we would like to turn back to their home countries, but their home countries don’t want them.”

He said officials “are trying to address the problem of how do we reduce the numbers at Guantánamo and then what do you do with the relatively limited number that would be irresponsible to release.”

“And I would tell you that we’re wrestling with those questions right now,” he continued.

In an interview on Thursday, Gordon England, the deputy secretary of defense who is Mr. Gates’s point man on detention issues, suggested that the long-term answer to Guantánamo might be creating some new international legal structure or set of multilateral agreements to manage captured members of global terrorist organizations.

“I don’t know the alternative unless the international community, frankly, develops an alternative,” Mr. England said. “It is not a U.S. problem. It is an international problem to be dealt with.”

Mr. England said American government officials had “an extraordinarily high degree of confidence from the information available” that many Guantánamo detainees were “going to damage the country, so you just can’t let them go.”

“So,” he added, “this is difficult. I know it’s onerous. I know there are a lot of questions about it. We deal with it the best we can. But at the end of the day, we are not going to put the country or our citizens in jeopardy.”

Have Your Say: Gonzales, Cheney Blocked Appeals to Close Guantanamo
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 25th, 2007 at 4:34 am and is filed under 9/11 Truth, Contributions & Guests . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Translate: