Since this article refers to both President and Mrs. Clinton, they are sometimes referred to by their first names for clarity.
Most of the information is from the FBI report. Some contextual facts and dates have been added.
The Takeaways. The Players. The Timeline.
The FBI could not review all of the Hillary Clinton emails under investigation because:
The Clintons’ Apple personal server used for Hillary Clinton work email could not be located for the FBI to examine.
An Apple MacBook laptop and thumb drive that contained Hillary Clinton email archives were lost, and the FBI couldn’t examine them.
2 BlackBerry devices provided to FBI didn’t have their SIM or SD data cards.
13 Hillary Clinton personal mobile devices were lost, discarded or destroyed. Therefore, the FBI couldn’t examine them.
Various server backups were deleted over time, so the FBI couldn’t examine them.
After State Dept. notified Hillary Clinton her records would be sought by House Benghazi Committee, copies of her email on the laptops of her attorneys Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were wiped with BleachBit, and the FBI couldn’t review them.
After her emails were subpoenaed, Hillary Clinton’s email archive was also permanently deleted from her then-server “PRN” with BleachBit, and the FBI couldn’t review it.
Also after the subpoena, backups of the PRN server were manually deleted.
Even though the FBI did not have a complete record of Hillary Clinton’s emails on three unclassified personal servers, it found:
2,093 emails State Dept. currently classifies as Confidential or Secret. (State Dept. did not address what their classification was at the time they were sent.)
193 emails (81 separate email conversations) that were classified at the time they were sent, ranging from “Confidential” to “Top Secret/Special Access Program.”
68 of the 81 email chains remain classified today.
8 were Top Secret.
37 were Secret.
36 were Confidential.
7 were Special Access Program.
3 were Sensitive Compartmentalized Information.
36 were Not Releasing to Foreign Governments.
2 were Releasable Only to Five Allied Partners.
12 of the suspect email chains were not provided by Hillary’s attorneys. The FBI found them other ways.
The email chains contained classified information from 5 other agencies: CIA, DOD, FBI, NGA and NSA.
The Players (as they surface in timeline)
Justin Cooper: President Bill Clinton aide Bryan Pagliano: Computer technician from Hillary Clinton ‘08 campaign Huma Abedin: Hillary Clinton aide Eric Boswell: State Dept. Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security John Bentel: State Dept. Information Technology official who handled Hillary Clinton’s issues Jake Sullivan: Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills: Hillary Clinton chief of staff and attorney Raymond Maxwell: Former State Dept. Deputy Assistant Secretary Monica Hanley: Hillary Clinton aide Sid Blumenthal: Hillary Clinton friend and adviser Heather Samuelson: Hillary Clinton campaign worker and attorney David Kendall of Williams & Connolly: Hillary Clinton attorney
3 Known Clinton Private Servers: Apple, “Pagliano,” and Platte River Networks (PRN)
2007: Hillary Clinton announces run for President. Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper buys an Apple server for a new email system to be located in the Clintons’ Chappaqua, NY residence.
June 2008: Hillary drops out of Presidential race. Cooper sets up the Apple server.
Fall 2008: Hillary aide Huma Abedin contacts Hillary campaign computer tech Bryan Pagliano to build 2nd server because the Apple—in use for just a few months—is “antiquated.”
Hillary Clinton as secretary of state
Jan. 2009: Hillary begins transitioning from her personal BlackBerry.net email to a clintonemail.com account on the “antiquated” Apple server.
Jan. 11, 2009: Increase in cyberattack attempts on State Dept. employee personal email accounts.
Jan. 21, 2009: Hillary becomes secretary of state. She declines a State Dept. email address and instead uses her personal BlackBerry in office.
Feb. 2009: Hillary travels to Asia, her first overseas trip as secretary of state.
March 2, 2009: Security memo warns Hillary and Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills that it’s risky to use their personal email and BlackBerry devices.
I cannot stress too strongly…that any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving e-mails, and exploiting calendars. –State Dept. memo from Eric Boswell of Diplomatic Security 3/2/2009.
March 11, 2009: Hillary is told there’s “intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent [Feb.] trip to Asia.” She acknowledges to Boswell that she “gets it.”
March 2009: State Dept. official handling Hillary computer security issues, John Bentel,reportedly receives memo showing that Hillary’s private server was set to be installed at her NY home. Bentel would later tell FBI he didn’t know Hillary was using a personal account or server.
March 18, 2009: The server installed by Pagliano replaces the Apple, but Pagliano later tells FBI he didn’t transfer Hillary’s clintonemail.com account. The FBI could never locate or examine Apple server to determine facts.
Feb. 9, 2011: State Dept. staff again raises concerns about Hillary and staff using electronic devices in their offices.
March 2, 2011: State Dept. detects malicious cyber activity aimed at senior officials.
April 2011: Hillary’s immediate staff is briefed again on cybersecurity threats.
May 2011: Hillary’s immediate staff is briefed again.
Aug. 30, 2011: Hillary requests a government device to replace her broken BlackBerry. After she’s told it would be subject to Freedom of Information Act records searches, no government device is issued.
2011: Memo from Hillary cautions State Dept. employees about security and records retention, and advises not to use personal email for government business.
Nov. 2012: State Dept. Accountability Review Board convenes to investigate Benghazi. Hillary aides Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan are reportedly seen at allegedly improper Benghazi “document sorting” session in State Dept. basement.
Week of Dec. 9, 2012: Hillary faints and falls, suffering a concussion. State Dept. keeps it secret for several days.
Dec. 4, 2012:
Congressional investigators try to schedule interview with Bentel, Hillary’s State Dept. information technology officer.
He retires from State Dept. in December.
Dec. 15, 2012: Hillary postpones her Congressional testimony on Benghazi due to illness.
Dec. 30, 2012: State Dept. discloses discovery of “blood clot” in Clinton’s head from the concussion.
Early 2013: Pagliano plans to seek other work. Clinton staff begins searching for vendor to manage a new, 3rd Clinton email server.
Jan. 2, 2013: Platte River Networks of Denver (PRN) wins contract for new Clinton server.
Jan. 7, 2013: Hillary returns to work.
Jan. 23, 2013: Hillary testifies to Congress on Benghazi attacks.
Presidential nominee, Democrat Hillary Clinton
Feb. 1, 2013: Hillary’s last day as secretary of state. She fails to produce her federal records as required by law.
Hillary aide Monica Hanley and Cooper put Hillary email archive on an Apple MacBook laptop and thumb drive.
But Hanley later tells FBI she forgot to give laptop and thumb drive to Hillary’s staff.
The laptop and thumb drive are lost and the FBI cannot examine.
March 14, 2013: Hillary confidant Sid Blumenthal’s AOL email is hacked by Romanian cyber hacker “Guccifer,” uncovering a memo to Hillary with classified “confidential” information.
June 2013: According to a book later written by Bill, Hillary finally recovers from her Dec. 2012 illness about now.
June 23, 2013: Pagliano server is moved to Equinix datacenter, NJ which “serves the world’s largest financial, media, and enterprise companies.”
June 30, 2013: Pagliano server email accounts are transferred to the new PRN server.
July 18, 2013: Clintons sign formal deal with PRN for new email server.
Early 2014: Hanley says she finds Apple MacBook laptop from Spring of 2013 at her home and tries, but fails, to remotely transfer Hillary email archive to PRN server.
Hanley ships Apple MacBook laptop to unidentified person who transfers Hillary email archive to Gmail address, then to PRN server.
Hanley instructs unidentified person to delete and/or wipe Hillary email archive from Apple MacBook and Gmail.
Unidentified person ships Apple MacBook via US Postal Service or UPS to unidentified female Hillary associate who later tells FBI she never received it.
Nobody can find the Apple MacBook or thumb drive containing Hillary archive email.
May 8, 2014: House Benghazi committee is established.
Summer of 2014: State Dept. notifies Hillary aide Cheryl Mills that it will be requesting Hillary’s work emails.
July 23, 2014: Congressional Benghazi committee reaches agreement with State Dept. on production of records.
Mills initiates review of any Hillary work emails with .gov addresses that were transferred from Pagliano server to PRN server.
The emails don’t include the Jan-March 2009 emails lost on the missing Apple server.
The .gov work emails are put in a file on laptops of Mills and Hillary attorney Heather Samuelson.
These laptop email files would later be wiped using BleachBit so they could never be recovered. The FBI was unable to review them.
August, 2014: State Dept. provides House Benghazi Committee with eight emails to or from Clinton that show her use of a private email account.
Sept. 15, 2014: Sharyl Attkisson reports on State Dept. official who said he witnessed Benghazi document sorting session with Hillary aides in State Dept. basement in 2013.
Late Sept. 2014:
Mills and Samuelson review the rest of the available Hillary emails, besides the .gov.
These email files would later be wiped using BleachBit so they could never be recovered. The FBI was unable to review them.
Selected emails are printed in Mills’ office and reviewed again by attorneys Samuelson, Mills and Hillary attorney David Kendall of Williams & Connolly.
“Non-work” emails are shredded.
“Work” emails were printed and provided on USB drive to Kendall.
Dec. 2014: Hillary and Abedin begin using new email accounts on the domain hrcoffice.com.
Dec. 5, 2014: Hard copies of Hillary work emails are given to State Dept.
Dec. 2014: Hillary instructs her staff she no longer needs to keep the remaining “personal” emails.
Dec. 2014 or Jan. 2015:
Mills and Samuelson request unidentified person to delete the Hillary email files from their laptops.
Software called “BleachBit” is used so it can never be recovered.
Unknown Hillary staffer also wants Hillary email archive removed from PRN server.
Mills asks for shortened email retention for clintonemail.com account because Hillary decides she no longer needs emails older than 60 days.
July 10, 2015: FBI begins investigation Hillary email situation after U.S. Intelligence Community Inspector General refers the case of possible improper handling of classified information.
March 2, 2015:
NYT article exposes fact that Clinton used personal email account exclusively for state business.
PRN technicians conduct work on Pagliano server at Equinix datacenter.
Mills later tells FBI they were working on the server because she asked them to conduct an equipment inventory.
March 3, 2015: House Benghazi committee requests Hillary attorneys at Williams & Connolly to preserve and produce all documents and media related to her two clintonemail.com known addresses.
March 4, 2015: House Benghazi committee privately subpoenas all Hillary emails related to Benghazi terrorist attacks. Clinton does not disclose the subpoenas but tweets, “I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”
March 9, 2015: Mills emails PRN and makes reference to the preservation request from Congress. A PRN technician would later tell FBI he doesn’t remember seeing it.
March 10, 2015: Clinton answers questions about her email practices for the first time. She tells reporters:
It was more convenient to use the private server.
“I wanted to use just one device for both personal and work emails instead of two.”
Last year, she deleted nearly 31,000+ emails that were “private.”
She will not turn over her personal email server.
She “fully complied” with the law.
She has turned over to the State Dept. 55,000 pages of work-related emails.
There were 62,320 emails in her account: 30,490 were public business; 31,830 were private.
March 25, 2015:
PRN has conference call with Bill Clinton’s staff.
PRN technician later tells FBI that, at this point, he realized he’d forgotten to shorten Hillary’s email retention (that Mills requested in Dec. 2014), so he now deletes the Clinton archive mailbox from PRN and uses BleachBit to permanently delete files holding the emails.
FBI says one PRN technician gave three conflicting stories but acknowledged that, when he made deletions, he knew of Congress’ preservation request and knew he should not delete Hillary’s email data on PRN server.
The FBI says somebody also manually deleted backups of the PRN server during this time frame. Clinton and Mills say they were unaware of these deletions.
March 31, 2015: There’s a conference call among PRN, Kendall and Mills. Later, PRN would exert attorney-client privilege and refuse to comment on conversation. This means Hillary’s attorneys are representing the PRN technician, too.
May 27, 2015: In a Freedom of Information (FOI) lawsuit, the court orders State Dept. to post emails on FOI website on a monthly schedule to complete by Jan 29, 2016. (State completes Feb 29, 2016.)
July 28, 2015: Hillary revises her statement regarding classified email to say she is confident she never sent or received emails that were classified at the time. Later, the FBI would find Hillary sent or received 193 emails (81 separate email conversations) that were classified at the time they were sent, ranging from “Confidential” to “Top Secret/Special Access Program.”
July 31 2015: The federal judge in a Judicial Watch FOI suit, Emmet Sullivan, orders State Dept. to request that Mills and Abedin confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all government records in their possession, return any other government records immediately, and describe their use of Hillary’s email server to conduct government business.
Aug. 5, 2015: State Dept. sends letter to Hillary including Judge Sullivan’s order.
Aug. 6, 2015: Mills’ attorney tells Judicial Watch that it has instructed Mills to “delete any and all electronic copies [of potential federal records] in her possession” after her anticipated production of records on Aug. 10. Judicial Watch files an emergency request to block the destruction.
Aug. 11, 2015: Inspector General report to the Senate contradicts Hillary claims; some emails, says the IG, contained information that was classified at the time.
Aug. 19, 2015: Hillary’s personal lawyer tells a Senate committee that all data, including emails, was erased from her server prior to it being turned over to the FBI. Hillary tells reporters the investigation surrounding her server “has nothing to do with me.” She contradicts the Inspector General by reiterating that she never sent or received classified material.
FBI obtains Pagliano server.
Williams & Connolly doesn’t disclose that there’s other related equipment, and that Hillary emails had been transferred to PRN server.
PRN says, at this time, it realizes it’s accidentally backing up its Hillary server on the cloud rather than just locally as the Clintons had directed. It discontinues the cloud backups.
Aug. 27, 2015: Hillary tells an Iowa audience that using a personal email server “…clearly wasn’t the best choice..I take responsibility…” She repeats her modified statement, “I never sent nor received any e-mail that was marked classified.”
Sept. 10, 2015: Pagliano pleads the fifth before House Benghazi committee.
October, 2015: Previously withheld Hillary emails reveal she told daughter Chelsea almost immediately that terrorists were behind the Benghazi attacks, yet told the public they were prompted by a protest over a YouTube video.
Oct. 3, 2015: After learning about additional Pagliano server equipment, and that Hillary emails had been transferred to PRN server, FBI obtains equipment and PRN server.
Oct. 14, 2015: Hillary attorneys at Williams & Connolly review an iMac of Hillary’s and assure the Justice Dept. that no work emails were found on it.
Oct. 16, 2015: Williams & Connolly provides 2 Hillary Blackberry devices to FBI but forensics finds no evidence they were ever connected to her personal servers. They do not contain their SIM cards or SD secure digital cards.
Oct. 28, 2015: State Dept. sends formal request to Hillary and other former secretaries asking for their work-related emails. Hillary directs attorneys Kendall and Mills to oversee.
Jan. 7, 2016: FBI interviews Sid Blumenthal, who sent at least 24 memos currently classified “confidential” and at least one email classified as “Secret” at the time and currently to Hillary on unclassified system.
Feb. 9, 2016: Justice Dept. requests all of Hillary’s 13 mobile devices.
Feb. 22, 2016: Williams & Connolly tells DOJ it cannot locate any of the devices, so FBI was unable to examine the 13 mobile devices.
Feb 27, 2016: Jake Sullivan is interviewed by FBI. He says he’s not concerned emails with classified information that he sent to Hillary on unclassified system.
March 2016: Bentel declines to testify to Senate committee.
March 31, 2016: Guccifer is extradited from Romania to US.
April 5, 2016: FBI interviews Huma Abedin who sent at least one email classified as “confidential” to Hillary on her unclassified system.
April 9, 2016: Cheryl Mills is interviewed by FBI. She refuses to answer some questions under attorney-client privilege. She says she’s not concerned by her decision to send Hillary emails with information later deemed “classified” on her unclassified system.
May 25, 2016:
State Dept. Inspector General (IG) says under Foreign Affairs Manual, employees are required to conduct day to day operations using authorized information system.
IG says there’s “no evidence” Clinton sought approval to use her personal email account or private servers despite her obligation to do so.
June 22, 2016: Pagliano pleads the fifth 125 times in deposition with conservative watchdog Judicial Watch.
June 27, 2016: Attorney General Loretta Lynch meets privately with President Clinton. The two say it was a purely social visit.
July 2, 2016: FBI interviews Hillary Clinton.
July 4, 2016: Hillary indicates that, as President, she would likely keep Lynch as attorney general.
July 5, 2016: FBI Director James Comey recommends no prosecution in Hillary email case.
PREFACE. Read the critical research on 9/11 in this important book
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, September 13, 2016
“The livelihood of millions of people throughout the World is at stake. It is my sincere hope that the truth will prevail and that the understanding provided in this detailed study will serve the cause of World peace. This objective, however, can only be reached by revealing the falsehoods behind America’s “War on Terrorism” and questioning the legitimacy of the main political and military actors responsible for extensive war crimes.” (Michel Chossudovsky, August 2005 )
“America’s War on Terrorism” was launched at 9.30pm on September 11, 2001
At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation.
That same evening at 9:30 pm, a “War Cabinet” was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. And at 11:00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White House, the “War on Terrorism” was officially launched.
The decision was announced to wage war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in retribution for the 9/11 attacks. The following morning on September 12th, the news headlines indelibly pointed to “state sponsorship” of the 9/11 attacks. In chorus, the US media was calling for a military intervention against Afghanistan. Barely four weeks later, on the 7th of October, Afghanistan was bombed and invaded by US troops.Americans were led to believe that the decision to go to war had been taken on the spur of the moment, on the evening of September 11, in response to the attacks and their tragic consequences.
Little did the public realize that a large scale theater war is never planned and executed in a matter of weeks. The decision to launch a war and send troops to Afghanistan had been taken well in advance of 9/11. The “terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event” as it was later described by CentCom Commander General Tommy Franks, served to galvanize public opinion in support of a war agenda which was already in its final planning stage.
The tragic events of 9/11 provided the required justification to wage a war on “humanitarian grounds”, with the full support of World public opinion and the endorsement of the “international community”.
Several prominent “progressive” intellectuals made a case for “retaliation against terrorism”, on moral and ethical grounds. The “just cause” military doctrine (jus ad bellum) was accepted and upheld at face value as a legitimate response to 9/11,without examining the fact that Washington had not only supported the “Islamic terror network”, it was also instrumental in the installation of the Taliban government in 1996.
In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement was completely isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Afghanistan, an impoverished country of 30 million people.
I started writing on the evening of September 11, late into the night, going through piles of research notes, which I had previously collected on the history of Al Qaeda. My first text entitled “Who is Osama bin Laden?”, which was completed and first published on September the 12th. (See Chapter II.)
From the very outset, I questioned the official story, which described nineteen Al Qaeda sponsored hijackers involved in a highly sophisticated and organized operation. My first objective was to reveal the true nature of this illusive “enemy of America”, who was “threatening the Homeland”.
The myth of the “outside enemy” and the threat of “Islamic terrorists” was the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to xii America’s “War on Terrorism” mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America.
Without an “outside enemy”, there could be no “war on terrorism”. The entire national security agenda would collapse “like a deck of cards”. The war criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on.
It was consequently crucial for the development of a coherent antiwar and civil rights movement, to reveal the nature of Al Qaeda and its evolving relationship to successive US administrations.
Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda was a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet- Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official documents of the US Congress. The intelligence community had time and again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the wake of the Cold War: “he turned against us”.
After 9/11, the campaign of media disinformation served not only to drown the truth but also to kill much of the historical evidence on how this illusive “outside enemy” had been fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”. The Balkans Connection My research on the Balkans conducted since the mid-1990s enabled me to document numerous ties and connections between Al Qaeda and the US Administration. The US military, the CIA and NATO had supported Al Qaeda in the Balkans. Washington’s objective was to trigger ethnic conflict and destabilize the Yugoslav federation, first in Bosnia, then in Kosovo.
In 1997, the Republican Party Committee (RPC) of the US Senate released a detailed report which accused President Clinton of collaborating with the “Islamic Militant Network” in Bosnia and working hand in glove with an organization linked to Osama bin Laden. (See Chapter III.) The report, however,was not widely publicized. Instead, the Republicans chose to discredit Clinton for his liaison with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
The Clinton Administration had also been providing covert support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a paramilitary group supported by Al Qaeda, which was involved in numerous terrorist attacks. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, more commonly known as MI6, together with former members of Britain’s 22nd Special Air Services Regiment (SAS) were providing training to the KLA, despite its extensive links to organized crime and the drug trade. Meanwhile, known and documented, several Al Qaeda operatives had integrated the ranks of the KLA. (See Chapter III).
In the months leading up to 9/11, I was actively involved in research on the terror attacks in Macedonia, waged by the self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA) of Macedonia, a paramilitary army integrated by KLA commanders. Al Qaeda Mujahideen had integrated the NLA. Meanwhile, senior US military officers from a private mercenary company on contract to the Pentagon were advising the terrorists.
Barely a couple of months prior to 9/11, US military advisers were seen mingling with Al Qaeda operatives within the same paramilitary army. In late June 2001, seventeen US “instructors” were identified among the withdrawing rebels. To avoid the diplomatic humiliation and media embarrassment of senior US military personnel captured together with “Islamic terrorists”by the Macedonian Armed Forces, the US and NATO pressured the Macedonian government to allow the NLA terrorists and their US military advisers to be evacuated.
The evidence, including statements by the Macedonian Prime Minister and press reports out of Macedonia, pointed unequivocally to continued US covert support to the “Islamic brigades” in the former Yugoslavia. This was not happening in the bygone era of the Cold War, but in June 2001, barely a couple of months prior to 9/11. These developments, which I was following on a daily basis, immediately cast doubt in my mind on the official 9/11 narrative which presented Al Qaeda as the mastermind behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. (Chapter IV.) xiv America’s “War on Terrorism”
The Mysterious Pakistani General
On the 12th of September, a mysterious Lieutenant General, head of Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (ISI), who according to the US press reports “happened to be in Washington at the time of the attacks”, was called into the office of Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitrage.
The “War on Terrorism” had been officially launched late in the night of September 11, and Dick Armitage was asking General Mahmoud Ahmad to help America “in going after the terrorists”. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was on the phone with Secretary of State Colin Powell and the following morning, on the 13th of September, a comprehensive agreement, was reached between the two governments.
While the press reports confirmed that Pakistan would support the Bush administration in the “war on terror”, what they failed to mention was the fact that Pakistan`s military intelligence (ISI) headed by General Ahmad had a longstanding relationship to the Islamic terror network. Documented by numerous sources, the ISI was known to have supported a number of Islamic organizations including Al Qaeda and the Taliban. (See Chapter IV.)
My first reaction in reading news headlines on the 13th of September was to ask: if the Bush administration were really committed to weeding out the terrorists, why would it call upon Pakistan`s ISI, which is known to have supported and financed these terrorist organizations?
Two weeks later, an FBI report, which was briefly mentioned on ABC News, pointed to a “Pakistani connection” in the financing of the alleged 9/11 terrorists. The ABC report referred to a Pakistani “moneyman” and “mastermind” behind the 9/11 hijackers.
Subsequent reports indeed suggested that the head of Pakistan’s military intelligence, General Mahmoud Ahmad, who had met Colin Powell on the 13th of September 2001, had allegedly ordered the transfer of 100,000 dollars to the 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta. What these reports suggested was that the head of Pakistan’s military intelligence was not only in close contact with senior officials of the US Government, he was also in liaison with the alleged hijackers.
My writings on the Balkans and Pakistani connections, published in early October 2001 were later incorporated into the first edition of this book. In subsequent research, I turned my attention to the broader US strategic and economic agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East.
There is an intricate relationship between War and Globalization. The “War on Terror” has been used as a pretext to conquer new economic frontiers and ultimately establish corporate control over Iraq’s extensive oil reserves.
The Disinformation Campaign
In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the disinformation campaign went into full gear.
Known and documented prior to the invasion, Britain and the US made extensive use of fake intelligence to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Al Qaeda was presented as an ally of the Baghdad regime. “Osama bin Laden” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” statements circulated profusely in the news chain. (Chapter XI.)
Meanwhile, a new terrorist mastermind had emerged: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. In Colin Powell’s historic address to the United Nations Security Council, detailed “documentation” on a sinister relationship between Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was presented, focussing on his ability to produce deadly chemical, biological and radiological weapons, with the full support and endorsement of the secular Baathist regime.
A Code Orange terror alert followed within two days of Powell’s speech at the United Nations Security Council, where he had been politely rebuffed by UN Weapons Inspector Dr. Hans Blix.
Realty was thus turned upside down. The US was no longer viewed as preparing to wage war on Iraq. Iraq was preparing to attack America with the support of “Islamic terrorists”. Terrorist mastermind Al-Zarqawi was identified as the number one suspect. Official statements pointed to the dangers of a dirty radioactive bomb attack in the US.
The main thrust of the disinformation campaign continued in the wake of the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. It consisted in presenting the Iraqi resistance movement as “terrorists”. The image of “terrorists opposed to democracy” fighting US “peacekeepers” appeared on television screens and news tabloids across the globe.
Meanwhile, the Code Orange terror alerts were being used by the Bush administration to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation across America. (See Chapter XX.) The terror alerts also served to distract public opinion from the countless atrocities committed by US forces in the Afghan and Iraqi war theaters, not to mention the routine torture of so-called “enemy combatants”.
Following the invasion of Afghanistan, the torture of prisoners of war and the setting up of concentration camps became an integral part of the Bush administration’s post 9/11 agenda.
The entire legal framework had been turned upside down. According to the US Department of Justice, torture was now permitted under certain circumstances. Torture directed against “terrorists” was upheld as a justifiable means to preserving human rights and democracy. (See chapters XIV and XV.) In an utterly twisted logic, the Commander in Chief can now quite legitimately authorize the use of torture, because the victims of torture in this case are so-called “terrorists”, who are said to routinely apply the same methods against Americans.
The orders to torture prisoners of war at the Guantanamo concentration camp and in Iraq in the wake of the 2003 invasion emanated from the highest levels of the US Government. Prison guards, interrogators in the US military and the CIA were responding to precise guidelines.
An inquisitorial system had been installed. In the US and Britain the “war on the terrorism” is upheld as being in the public interest. Anybody who questions its practices—which now include arbitrary arrest and detention, torture of men, women and children, political assassinations and concentration camps—is liable to be arrested under the antiterrorist legislation.
The London 7/7 Bomb Attack A new threshold in the “war on terrorism”was reached in July 2005, with the bomb attacks on London’s underground, which resulted tragically in 56 deaths and several hundred wounded.
On both sides of the Atlantic, the London 7//7 attacks were used to usher in far-reaching police state measures. The US House of Representatives renewed the USA PATRIOT Act “to make permanent the government’s unprecedented powers to investigate suspected terrorists”. Republicans claimed that the London attacks showed “how urgent and important it was to renew the law.”
Barely a week prior to the London attacks, Washington had announced the formation of a “domestic spy service” under the auspices of the FBI. The new department—meaning essentially a Big Brother “Secret State Police”—was given a mandate to “spy on people in America suspected of terrorism or having critical intelligence information, even if they are not suspected of committing a crime.” Significantly, this new FBI service is not accountable to the Department of Justice. It is controlled by the Directorate of National Intelligence headed by John Negroponte, who has the authority of ordering the arrest of “terror suspects”.
Meanwhile, in the wake of the 7/7 London attacks, Britain’s Home Office, was calling for a system of ID cards, as an “answer to terrorism”. Each and every British citizen and resident will be obliged to register personal information, which will go into a giant national database, along with their personal biometrics: “iris pattern of the eye”, fingerprints and “digitally recognizable facial features”. Similar procedures were being carried out in the European Union.
War Criminals in High Office
The anti-terrorist legislation and the establishment of a Police State largely serve the interests of those who have committed extensive war crimes and who would otherwise have been indicted under national and international law.
In the wake of the London 7/7 attacks, war criminals continue to legitimately occupy positions of authority,which enable them to xviii America’s “War on Terrorism” redefine the contours of the judicial system and the process of law enforcement. This process has provided them with a mandate to decide “who are the criminals”, when in fact they are the criminals. (Chapter XVI).
From New York and Washington on September 11 to Madrid in March 2004 and to London in July 2005, the terror attacks have been used as a pretext to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. People can be arbitrarily arrested under the antiterrorist legislation and detained for an indefinite period.More generally, throughout the Western World, citizens are being tagged and labeled, their emails, telephone conversations and faxes are monitored and archived. Thousands of closed circuit TV cameras, deployed in urban areas, are overseeing their movements. Detailed personal data is entered into giant Big Brother data banks. Once this cataloging has been completed, people will be locked into watertight compartments.
The witch-hunt is not only directed against presumed “terrorists” through ethnic profiling, the various human rights, affirmative action and antiwar cohorts are also the object of the antiterrorist legislation.
The National Security Doctrine In 2005, the Pentagon released a major document entitled The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America (NDS), which broadly sketches Washington’s agenda for global military domination. While the NDS follows in the footsteps of the Administration’s “preemptive” war doctrine as outlined in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), it goes much further in setting the contours of Washington’s global military agenda. (See Chapter XIX.)
Whereas the preemptive war doctrine envisages military action as a means of “self defense” against countries categorized as “hostile” to the US, the 2005 NDS goes one step further. It envisages the possibility of military intervention against “unstable countries” or “failed nations”, which do not visibly constitute a threat to the security of the US.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon had unleashed a major propaganda and public relations campaign with a view to upholding the use of nuclear weapons for the “Defense of the American Homeland” against terrorists and rogue enemies. The fact that the nuclear bomb is categorized by the Pentagon as “safe for civilians” to be used in major counter-terrorist activities borders on the absurd.
In 2005, US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) drew up “a contingency plan to be used in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack”. The plan includes air raids on Iran using both conventional as well as tactical nuclear weapons.
America’s “War on Terrorism” The first ten chapters,with some changes and updates, correspond to the first edition of the book published in 2002 under the title War and Globalization: The Truth behind September 11. The present expanded edition contains twelve new chapters, which are the result of research undertaken both prior as well as in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. (Parts III and IV.) The sequencing of the material in Parts III and IV corresponds to the historical evolution of the post 9/11 US military and national security agendas. My main objective has been to refute the official narrative and reveal—using detailed evidence and documentation—the true nature of America’s “war on terrorism”.
Part I includes four chapters on September 11, focusing on the history of Al Qaeda and its ties to the US intelligence apparatus. These chapters document how successive administrations have supported and sustained terrorist organizations with a view to destabilizing national societies and creating political instability.
Part II entitled War and Globalization centers on the strategic and economic interests underlying the “war on terrorism”.
Part III contains a detailed analysis of War Propaganda and the Disinformation Campaign, both prior and in the wake of the invasion of Iraq.
Part IV entitled The New World Order includes a review of the Bush administration’s preemptive war doctrine (Chapter XIX), a detailed analysis of the post-Taliban narcotics trade protected by US intelligence, and a review of the 9/11 Commission Report focusing specifically on “What Happened on the Planes on the Morning of 9/11”.
Chapter XX focuses on the system of terror alerts and their implications. Chapter XXI follows with an examination of the emergency procedures that could be used to usher in Martial Law leading to the suspension of Constitutional government. In this regard, the US Congress has already adopted procedures, which allow the Military to intervene directly in civilian police and judicial functions. In the case of a national emergency—e.g., in response to an alleged terror attack—there are clearly defined provisions, which could lead to the formation of a military government in America.
Finally, Chapter XXII focuses on the broad implications of the 7/7 London Bombs Attacks, which were followed by the adoption of sweeping Police State measures in Britain, the European Union and North America.
Writing this book has not been an easy undertaking. The material is highly sensitive. The results of this analysis, which digs beneath the gilded surface of US foreign policy, are both troublesome and disturbing. The conclusions are difficult to accept because they point to the criminalization of the upper echelons of the State. They also confirm the complicity of the corporate media in upholding the legitimacy of the Administration’s war agenda and camouflaging US sponsored war crimes.
The World is at an important historical crossroads. The US has embarked on a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. As we go to press, the Bush Administration has hinted in no uncertain terms that Iran is the next target of the “war on terrorism”.
Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel’s participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories.
I have attempted to the best of my abilities to provide evidence and detailed documentation of an extremely complex political process.
The livelihood of millions of people throughout the World is at stake. It is my sincere hope that the truth will prevail and that the understanding provided in this detailed study will serve the cause of World peace. This objective, however, can only be reached by revealing the falsehoods behind America’s “War on Terrorism” and questioning the legitimacy of the main political and military actors responsible for extensive war crimes.
I am indebted to many people, who in the course of my work have supported my endeavors and have provided useful research insights. The readers of the Global Research website atwww.globalresearch.ca have been a source of continuous inspiration and encouragement.