by dude h homeslice ix » Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:22 pm
in fact it is insanely wordy and over-the top, like intellectual masturbation from one standpoint. however...dayam! were talkin less than two months here.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>it was fucking obvious to so many of us right away!</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><br><br><br><br>English 120, Section 1<br><br>16 November 2001<br><br>911: The Double-Barreled Smoking Gun<br><br>Someone in the Bush administration knew what was to happen on September 11th. Someone understood that a terrorist attack on American soil was immanent. They allowed it to take place, and have ever since reaped the benefits of the attacks: political, military, judicial and financial.<br> Such words scarcely leave the lips before someone cries “conspiracy theory.” There is something of a tacit dismissal in such a label, isn’t there? The very word “conspiracy” brings up images of lunatics who make shaky connections between unrelated events and persons, and too often burn their own credibility in the flames of a passionate desire to speak truth to power.<br>Not surprisingly, conspiracy theories abound with regard to the September 11th attacks, and the unexpected characteristic which makes them worthy of a second look is the wealth of mainstream news stories suggesting that the U.S. acted with considerable negligence with regard to the attacks. Another is a historical pattern of similar incidents into which such government complicity fits quite easily. Such a pattern of prior knowledge and complicity—or in some cases even manufacture—of acts of war against American interests suggests that “conspiracy” is a loaded word which fails to characterize what might be more accurately called “business as usual.” <br> This paper will discuss the Bush administration’s complicity in the events of September 11th, and thereby make the case for an investigation into what really happened on that day. With each passing day, more information surfaces which would bolster this case, but space constraints dictate that we keep to a narrow range of implications. First, we will address the Bush administration’s stifling of domestic and international investigations into the very network of terrorists now said to be responsible for the attacks—against the backdrop of multiple warnings from law enforcement, foreign intelligence, even policymakers and think-tanks about immanent terrorist threats. Next, there is the military’s staggering mishandling of the events of September 11th, characterized in the mainstream media as a “failure”—a position that is difficult to defend based on the evidence. There follows a much-abridged breakdown of the just a few of the executive, military, financial, legislative, judicial, and administration-legitimizing benefits the administration has enjoyed as a result of Black Tuesday. Finally, we include a short discussion of some of the many instances in U.S. history in which past administrations have seized the opportunities afforded them by attacks on the nation’s interests—genuine, instigated, and even fabricated. <br><br>Prior Knowledge <br>“A senior government official yesterday acknowledged law enforcement officials were aware that fewer than a dozen people with links to bin Laden had attended U.S. flight schools. However, the official said there was no information to indicate the flight students had been planning suicide hijacking attacks.”—FBI Knew Terrorists Were Using Flight Schools. Steve Fainaru and James V. Grimaldi, Washington Post, 23 September 2001<br><br>“…There were no warning signs that I’m aware of that would indicate this type of operation in the country.”—FBI Director Robert Mueller, September 18th.<br><br> In December of 2000, a group of non-governmental organizations, futurists, strategists and other experts prepared a study for the U.S. intelligence community called Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue with Non-Governmental Experts. The report is a comprehensive study of numerous factors and trends that will shape the world of 2015. The sections dealing with armed conflict, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were chillingly prophetic. In particular, the predictions dealing with terrorist attacks on American soil using methods aimed at greater casualties took less than one year to occur (National Intelligence Council). One month later, a Congressional report titled Road Map for National Security: The Imperative for Change made similar predictions, and recommendations based on those indications. Among the suggestions: the consolidation of the Coast Guard, Customs and the Border Patrol into a new branch of law enforcement called the “National Homeland Security Administration" (U.S. Commission--see Appendix B). <br> One year earlier, law enforcement officials on the U.S.-Canadian border foiled a plot to sabotage the Los Angeles International Airport. Several incidents, allegedly, have also been stopped before bearing fruit since then, most of them overseas. If these reports are to be believed, the remarkable fact is that with the single exception of the World Trade Center bombings in 1993, no foreign terrorist attacks on U.S. soil have been successful until 9/11. But the theoretical discussions at high levels of government, coupled with what seems to be a record of foiling attacks, should serve to firmly establish that the U.S. has had every reason to be vigilant in its defense against terrorism, and has exercised that vigilance with vigor, and has at least maintained the image of a proactive approach. In fact, since the U.S.S. Cole bombing in 2000, (for which there was no retaliation of any sort from either the Clinton or incoming Bush administrations), terrorist alert warnings to American civilian and military personnel around the world had become almost routine. If we are able to believe that this policy of vigilance is real, then fact that the military has not applied this standard at home seems contradictory.<br> Several news stories following the events of that fateful morning have been all but lost in the media maelstrom that followed the attacks. However, by keeping a few of them in our minds at once, we are able to observe a pattern suggesting the intelligence community had specific evidence of the attacks beforehand. Russian intelligence suggested such an event as early as March (Bancroft-Hinchey); British, French and Israeli intelligence predicted some form of attack against “symbols of America power” much closer to the date (Boyes). On September 14, the London Times reported that French warnings were unheeded: "This information was transmitted by French security services to the FBI but apparently got lost in the enormous American police machinery” (Boyes). The FBI knew of at least one al-Qaeda cell operating inside the United States, but claim they were unable to act on their information due to the fact that they had not committed any crime at the time. In fact the FBI tried to stop two of the hijackers from entering the country from Malaysia, where they had been caught on a surveillance video in Kuala Lampur. By the time they distributed photos and information warning the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service to be on the lookout for the pair, they had already entered the country (Boyes; Fainaru and Grimaldi). Two weeks before the attacks, FBI agents looking for suspects including these two questioned persons at the Airman Flight School in Norman Oklahoma—where some of bin Ladin’s pilots had received training (Fainaru and Grimaldi).<br> <br>Executive-Level Invitation<br>“In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants. These were, essentially, people who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained bitterly at the time there. I returned to the US, I complained to the State Dept here, to the General Accounting Office, to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to the Inspector General's office. I was met with silence.”—Michael Springman, former head of the American Visa Bureau in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 11 June 2001 (Palast).<br><br>“Based on the evidence, the FBI Special Agent believes that if certain investigations had been allowed to run their courses, Osama bin Laden’s network might have been prevented from committing the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks which resulted in the deaths of nearly 5,000 innocents.”—Judicial Watch Press Release, 14 Nov 2001.<br><br> The best the characterization the mainstream press is able to offer with regard to questionable dealings on the part of administrations, the intelligence community, or the military centers around the word “failure.” As their adventurisms have been reported, especially in the past ten years, the hands-down most powerful military and intelligence force the world has ever known is prone to blundering with fantastic frequency. Policymakers and other government personnel have learned that, when in the hot seat, failure-by-accident is easier to defend than failure-by-design.<br> On November 14th, an unnamed FBI agent filed a formal complaint with the Office of Inspector General through the government watchdog agency known as Judicial Watch. His claim: “that he was retaliated against when he continued to push for and pursue certain terrorist investigations over the objections of his FBI and Justice Department supervisors” (Judicial Watch—see Appendix C). According to this gentleman, bin Ladin’s al-Qaeda network could have been shattered as early as 1998. But the Clinton administration kept investigations into “Islamic terrorism” in check. The Bush administration, unfortunately, curtailed anti-terrorist activities involving Osama bin Ladin even further.<br>The BBC investigative report series Newsnight has recently made some stunning revelations (Palast et al). According to the report aired on November 6th 2001, the Bush administration removed FBI agents from ongoing investigations of bin Ladin family members, members of the Saudi royal family and an organization called the World Association of Muslim Youth, long under investigation as a possible terrorist group. This happened not long after Bush took power in January. Other nations such as India and the Philippines have been also looking into WAMY for years in connection with international terrorism. Pakistan has recently expelled operatives from the organization. Yet the U.S. treasury maintains they are a “charitable organization,” and has not frozen their assets as they have so many other groups. The FBI, which has had its eyes on WAMY since at least 1996, has been pulled from trail. The links between the Saudi royal family and the bin Ladins is well known; less well known is the connection both have with WAMY. With hundreds of persons detained as suspects in the attacks, it seems odd that 11 members of the bin Ladin family boarded a charter flight from the same Boston airport used in the hijackings bound for Saudi Arabia. Some of these, namely Abdullah and Omar bin Ladin, are not only members of the suspect organization, but are also FBI suspects in their own right (Palast et al).<br> Unfortunately, these revelations demonstrate a pattern of inaction quite different from the high-profile “heightened states of alert” that had almost become routine before 9/11. When an administration deliberately ties its hands with regards to ongoing anti-terrorist investigations in a climate of heightened concern over terrorism, is “failure” really an accurate characterization?<br><br> Where Was the USAF?<br>9:06 a.m.: Police radio broadcasts "This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon." New York Police radio, 9/11/2001 (see appendix A).<br>"We were watching the World Trade Center on the television," said a Navy officer. "When the second plane deliberately dove into the tower, someone said, 'The World Trade Center is one of the most recognizable symbols of America. We're sitting in a close second.'" Worker at Pentagon (Garamone).<br><br>But for those who argue that the government allowed the attacks to occur, the showpiece of their argument will remain the incredibly sluggish response time of the air force/air guard to scramble to the defense of the areas under attack. Between the first indications of suspicious flight path deviations in advance of the first collision and the final successful hit on the Pentagon, there elapsed an incredible 1.5 hours (see Appendix A). The plane struck its target a full 34 minutes after the New York Police dispatch quoted above. The fact that the Pentagon sits beneath some of the most protected airspace in the world gives one pause. Given the fact that two fighter squadrons are maintained and always ready just 15 miles from the Pentagon, at Andrews Air Force Base, this error confounds the imagination. USA Today reported on 9/17 that Andrews AFB, the home of Air Force One, "had no fighters assigned to it" (Stone). But DC Military.com, a website "[serving the] Washington D.C. military community" tells a different story: "Training for air combat and operational airlift for national defense is the 113th's primary mission. However, as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency" (AF Reserve Command, emphasis added).<br>Among the very few newspapers to accurately characterize the air defense capabilities of the nation's capital was the San Diego Union-Tribune, the day after the attacks:<br>"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said.<br>But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon, which is alongside a flight path to Ronald Reagan National Airport" (Goldstein).<br> Major media reported that fighters took off from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia two minutes before the Pentagon hit: "It emerged last night that two F-16 fighters took off from Langley airforce base in Virginia just two minutes before the American Airlines Boeing 767 crashed into the Pentagon, again too late to have a chance of intercepting” (Jacobson and Wastell). The evening of the attacks, NBC correspondent Jim Miklaszewski told anchor Tom Brokaw: "It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC" (Miklaszewski). Given the 113th Squadron's above-stated mission as an air defense unit specifically for the capitol, one is forced to wonder why the military deployed planes from Langley instead of Andrews. Most media outlets have characterized this as a "failure" on the part of the air defense system. But let us summarize: the Pentagon deployed two fighters from a base not generally designated to the area's defense (120 miles away), instead of from the base specifically assigned to defend the capitol (15 miles away), and they did so two minutes before the Pentagon hit, despite having at the very least a 34 minute window of opportunity. To characterize a seemingly deliberate deviation from normal air defense standards as a "failure" is dubious at best. <br><br>The Payoff<br> To suggest that the government of the United States, or rather certain elements within, would willingly allow such an atrocious event to occur in the centers of American power is indeed a serious accusation. One way to bolster such a mind-boggling thesis would be to establish a motive. What could the Bush administration possibly gain from such an act of war? <br> It turns out that the payoffs to the administration are enormous, across the spectrum: political, financial, military, legislative, judicial, and diplomatic. Bush’s right-wing agenda, particularly the “USA Patriot Act of 2001,” saw most of its Congressional opposition vanish in a miasma of panic and fear, exacerbated by the anthrax scare that followed and the Attorney General’s penchant for issuing further terrorist alerts, real or no. Another casualty was the administration’s skeleton-laden closet: from the lawsuit brought against the administration by the General Accounting Office due to Cheney’s questionable “Energy Task Force” proceedings, to the results of a massive study of the Florida election debacle of 2000, the release of which was postponed until November—and which, despite hard evidence to the contrary, has been spun as a Bush victory by some of the very news companies which sponsored it (Parry). But in today’s climate of fear and suspicion, national security is the ultimate fig leaf.<br>It will likely be decades before the scope of these benefits will be fully perceptible, but a short list is possible at this point: <br>1: Attacking/deposing the Taliban government in Afghanistan, the motivation toward which was revealed by a high-level Pakistani diplomat in July 2001 (Arney);<br>2: Establishment of the Office of Homeland Security as recommended by the "Road Map to National Security" mentioned above (U.S. Commission—see Appendix B);<br>3: Expansion of electronic surveillance, particularly on the Internet, where a significant legal and technological gap between available eavesdropping powers and tools and an increasingly complex global network has been increasing;<br>4: Resurrection of the flagging “Andean Initiative,” which some have argued was well on its way to becoming another casualty in the failing “War on Drugs,” under the cloak of the popular “War on Terrorism;”(Scarborough);<br>5: An acceleration of the United States’ military technology gap over the rest of the world, now sanctioned as a wartime necessity, conterminous with a sharp increase in military spending. Much of that spending will directly benefit men such as George Bush Senior, former Secretary of State and G.W. Bush’s election lawyer James Baker, and former British Prime Minister John Majors, who, through the buyout firm known as the Carlyle group, have controlling interests in many defense contracting firms around the world; (Judicial Watch 2).<br> Whoever orchestrated these events, then, may have saved the Bush administration—knowingly or unknowingly. <br><br>Historical Precedent<br> If it seems implausible that the U.S. government would allow such an event to occur, consider the historical evidence of similar actions over the past 60 years. In 2000, author Robert Stinnet published Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor. The book demonstrates quite clearly that the president knew the attack was coming on December 7th, 1941, and allowed it to take place, to draw an uncooperative American public into World War II. (Stinnet 1). The Gulf of Tonkin incident, which started the Vietnam “conflict,” is now recognized as 100% fabrication (Cohen and Solomon). The architects of escalation in Vietnam may have received inspiration from an NSA document declassified in 1984. The memoranda collectively known as “Operation Northwoods” outlined a range of options under which the United States could justify a massive military invasion of Cuba in the wake of the failed Bay of Pigs fiasco. The document did indeed suggest manufacturing a “Remember the Maine!” incident, designed to stir the vengeance of the American people. Kennedy rejected the plan, but perhaps Johnson saw its merits in the summer of 1964 (Joint Chiefs of Staff).<br> The fact is, catastrophic events are often necessary to create the conditions whereby the wrath of American military might is stirred to action. This necessity has been understood for centuries, and has been employed by persons hungry for power, and eager to maintain the illusion of legitimacy. Tactics that nudge such events into reality have been employed with great success in the past.<br>It may very well be the case today.<br> It is therefore in the national best interest to pursue further investigation into what really happened on September 11th. There is certainly enough in this abridged account of the discrepancies in the government’s line in the 9/11 narrative to establish some sort of probable cause. In fact, there is enough evidence of foul play to fill volumes; someday soon such volumes are guaranteed to appear. The implications are indeed grave, but the question remains: does America have the moral courage to look itself in the eye on this one? Does America have the stomach to take a closer look at its leaders? Like so many other aspects of American life, these questions take on new significance in light of the tragic events of Black Tuesday.<br><br>"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."- Ben Franklin<br><br>Works Cited<br>Air Force Reserve Command. Partner Units. 14 Nov. 2001. Comprint Military Publications, 2001.<br><http><br>Arney, George. U.S. 'Planned Attack on Taliban.' 1 Oct. 2001. London: BBC News, 18 Sep. 2001.<br><http><br>Arnot, Bob. What was needed to halt the attacks? 1 Oct 2001. NBC News, 13 Sep. 2001.<br><http><br>Bancroft-Hinchey, Timothy. Secret Services: WTC Attack Forecast in March—Bin Laden Has Cruise Missiles. 1 Nov. 2001. Lisbon, Portugal. Pravda Ru, 15 Oct 2001.<br><http><br>Boyes, et. Al. U.S. Intelligence Warned of Impending Attacks. 1 Oct 2001. London: The Times London, 14 Sep 2001.<br><br>Brokaw, Tom and Miklaszewski, Jim. Tuesday President Bush returns to White House on Marine One. NBC Nightly News, 11 Sep. 2001, 6:30 P.M. EST.<br><http><br>Cohen, Jeff and Solomon, Norman. 30-Year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War. 12 Nov. 2001. FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting), 27 July 1994.<br><http><br>Fainaru, Steve and Grimaldi, James. FBI Knew Terrorists Were Using Flight Schools. 1 Oct. 2001. Washington D.C.: The Washington Post, 23 Sep. 2001.<br><br>Garamone, Jim. It was Business as Usual, Then Boom! 14 Nov. 2001. Armed Services Press Report. 13 Sep. 2001. <http><br>Goldstein, Steve. Security Cracks Exposed. 14 Nov. 2001. San Diego, CA: San Diego Union-Tribune, 12 Sep. 2001.<br><http><br>Jacobson, Philip and Wastell, David. Israeli security issued urgent warning to CIA of large-scale terror attacks. 14 Nov. 2001.London: Daily Telegraph, 16 Sep. 2001.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml">news.telegraph.co.uk/news...wcia16.xml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Joint Chiefs of Staff. Justification for U.S. Military Intervention In Cuba. (Also known as "Operation Northwoods). Washington D.C.: Department of Defense, 13 March 1962.<br><br>Judicial Watch. Active FBI Special Agent Complaint Concerning Obstructed FBI Anti-Terrorist Investigation. 14 Nov. 2001. Judicial Watch Press Release, 14 Nov. 2001.<br><http><br>Judicial Watch (2). Wall Street Journal: Bush Sr. In Business With Bin Laden Family Conglomerate Through Carlyle Group. 1 Oct. 2001. Judicial Watch Press Release, 28 Sep. 2001.<br><http> <br> National Intelligence Council. Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue with Non-Governmental Experts. 20 Sep. 2001. Washington D.C.: National Intelligence Council, 2000.<br><http><br>Palast, Robert. BBC’s Newsnight. 6 November 2001. <br><br>Parry, Robert. "Gore's Victory." 12 Nov. 2001. Consortium News, 12 Nov. 2001.<br><http><br>Scarborough, Rowan. "Global Command Considered." 1 Oct 2001. Washington D.C.: Washington Post, 23 Oct 2001. <http><br>Stinnet, Robert. Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor. New York : Free Press, c2000.<br><br>Stone, Andrea. "Military now a presence on home front." 15 Nov. 2001. USA Today, 17 Sep. 2001.<br><http><br><br>Appendix A: 911 Timeline<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/dn912.htm">emperors-clothes.com/9-11.../dn912.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>Daily News (New York) <br>Wednesday 12 September 2001<br>'HOW THE TOWERS WENT DOWN: The Tragic Timeline' <br> [Timeline of the death of the World Trade Center:]<br>7:59 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767 carrying 92 people, takes off from Boston's Logan International Airport bound for Los Angeles.<br>8:01 a.m.:United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757 carrying 45 people to San Francisco, lifts off from Newark Airport.<br>8:10 a.m.: (approx.) - American Flight 77, a Boeing 757 carrying 64 people to Los Angeles, leaves Dulles International Airport in Washington.<br>8:14 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175, another Boeing 767, with 65 people aboard, takes off from Boston heading to Los Angeles.<br>8:45 a.m.: Flight 11, apparently hijacked by terrorists, crashes into 1 World Trade Center (north tower). Evacuations begin as tower turns into high-rise inferno.<br>9:03 a.m.: United Flight 175, also apparently skyjacked - crashes into 2 World Trade (the south tower). The crash is caught by TV cameras on news helicopters at the scene. Smoke and fire erupt from gaping holes near the top of both 110-story buildings. The NYPD radio broadcasts a report that evacuation of 1 World Trade is proceeding, and confusion and terror reign on the streets below. People jump to their deaths from the towers.<br>9:06 a.m.: Police radio broadcasts "This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon."<br>9:08 a.m.: "Freeze all the airports. Freeze all the airports. Nothing in or out," the police radio blares.<br>9:19 a.m.: The Associated Press reports the FBI is investigating reports of a plane hijacking before the crashes.<br>9:31 a.m.: President Bush calls World Trade Center crashes an apparent terrorist attack.<br>9:40 a.m.: American Flight 77, also apparently under the control of hijackers, crashes into the Pentagon in Washington.<br>9:43 a.m.: New Jersey airports and river crossings to New York City closed. PATH and NJTransit trains also ordered halted.<br>9:44 a.m.: Mountains of debris rain down off 2 World Trade Center, and people start running down Rector St. Con Ed workers, cops, detectives, firefighters move people along the street. Stores close.<br>9:48 a.m.: The Capitol and West Wing of the White House are evacuated. Congressional leaders and key White House officials are taken to a secret location.<br>9:49 a.m.: Federal Aviation Administration, for first time in history, orders flights grounded across the country.<br>10 a.m.: 2 World Trade Center, the south tower, collapses. Many are believed trapped in the buildings that are daily used by more than 50,000 people.<br>10 a.m.: United Flight 93, also apparently skyjacked, crashes 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. No survivors reported. Some reports say hijacker had intended to crash plane at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland.<br>10:29 a.m.: 1 World Trade Center, the north tower, collapses. Dust, smoke, gray ash and debris choke down Manhattan amid a bedlam of emergency vehicles rushing to the scene and ash- and soot-covered people trying to flee north.<br>10:40 a.m.: New York City primary election is called off.<br>10-11:30 a.m.: - United Nations closes down; Securities and Exchange Commission closes; U.S. financial markets close for the day; Mayor Giuliani calls for evacuation of lower Manhattan. Elsewhere, evacuations are ordered at the tallest skyscrapers in several cities, and high-profile tourist attractions are closed, including Walt Disney World, Mount Rushmore, Seattle's Space Needle and the Gateway Arch in St. Louis.<br>12:30 p.m.: Trains of 30 or more ambulances, some from as far away as Brooklyn, Long Island and New Jersey, carry some of the injured toward the Battery Tunnel.<br>1:20 p.m.: Bush leaves Barksdale Air Force Base, La., for secure, undisclosed location.<br>2:51 p.m.: The Navy dispatches missile destroyers and other equipment to New York and Washington.<br>5:25 p.m.: 7 World Trade Center, ablaze and heavily damaged by the fall of the two towers, collapses.<br>About 7 p.m. Crews begin heading into ground zero of the attack to search for survivors and recover bodies.<br>8:30 p.m. President Bush addresses nation from the Oval Office and vows to retaliate against "those behind these evil acts."<br>(c) 2001 Daily News Reprinted for Fair Use Only<br><br>Appendix B: Excerpt from "Road Map for National Security..."<br>Securing the National Homeland<br>“The combination of unconventional weapons proliferation with the persistence of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the U.S. homeland to catastrophic attack. A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century. The risk is not only death and destruction but also a demoralization that could undermine U.S. global leadership. In the face of this threat, our nation has no coherent or integrated governmental structures. <br>We therefore recommend the creation of a new independent National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security. NHSA would be built upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency, with the three organizations currently on the front line of border security-the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the Border Patrol- transferred to it. NHSA would not only protect American lives, but also assume responsibility for overseeing the protection of the nation's critical infrastructure, including information technology. <br>The NHSA Director would have Cabinet status and would be a statutory advisor to the National Security Council. The legal foundation for the National Homeland Security Agency would rest firmly within the array of Constitutional guarantees for civil liberties. The observance of these guarantees in the event of a national security emergency would be safeguarded by NHSA's interagency coordinating activities-which would include the Department of Justice-as well as by its conduct of advance exercises. <br>The potentially catastrophic nature of homeland attacks necessitates our being prepared to use the tremendous resources of the Department of Defense (DoD). Therefore, the department needs to pay far more attention to this mission in the future. We recommend that a new office of Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security be created to oversee the various DoD activities and ensure that the necessary resources are made available. <br>New priorities also need to be set for the U.S. armed forces in light of the threat to the homeland. We urge, in particular, that the National Guard be given homeland security as a primary mission, as the U.S. Constitution itself ordains. The National Guard should be reorganized, trained, and equipped to undertake that mission. <br>Finally, we recommend that Congress reorganize itself to accommodate this Executive Branch realignment, and that it also form a special select committee for homeland security to provide Congressional support and oversight in this critical area. “<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.nssg.gov/phaseIII.pdf">www.nssg.gov/phaseIII.pdf</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>Appendix C: <br><br>ACTIVE FBI SPECIAL AGENT FILES COMPLAINT CONCERNING OBSTRUCTED FBI ANTI-TERRORIST INVESTIGATIONS <br><br>COMPLAINS THAT SEPTEMBER 11 TERRORISTS ATTACKS MIGHT HAVE BEEN PREVENTED<br><br>FBI COULD HAVE STOPPED BIN LADEN YEARS AGO<br><br><br>(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that an active FBI Special Agent filed a complaint last week concerning FBI/Justice Department interference in and mishandling of terrorist investigations. The FBI Special Agent, who wishes to remain anonymous at this time, alleges that he was retaliated against when he continued to push for and pursue certain terrorist investigations over the objections of his FBI and Justice Department supervisors. The FBI Special Agent, who is represented by Judicial Watch and David Schippers, Esq., filed the complaint last week with the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (IG) and Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).<br><br>Based on the evidence, the FBI Special Agent believes that if certain investigations had been allowed to run their courses, Osama bin Laden’s network might have been prevented from committing the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks which resulted in the deaths of nearly 5,000 innocents.<br><br>Judicial Watch is requesting a full scale, independent investigation into its client’s concerns and seeks to hold accountable those responsible for preventing the full investigation of terrorist activity here in the United States and abroad. <p></p><i></i>
