1. The
first prediction is that we will not be given genuine options
regarding the war on terrorism.
We will have only two choices, both
of which are disastrous. It will be similar to the Vietnam War in
which Americans were expected to be either hawks or doves. Either
they supported the no-win war or they opposed it. They were not
given the option of victory.
Their choice was between pulling out of the war and turning the
country over to the Vietcong quickly – or doggedly staying in the
war and turning the country over to the Vietcong slowly - which is
the way it turned out. Likewise, in the war on terrorism, we will be
asked simply to choose sides. Either we are for freedom or for
terrorism. The necessity or wisdom of US interventionism will not be
allowed as a topic for public debate.
Epilogue:
On October 8, 2001,
President Bush announced the
beginning of military strikes against Afghanistan and said:
“Today
we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader. Every Nation has
a choice to make. In this conflict, there is no neutral ground.”1
On
the day that Congress approved the first $20 billion to finance the
war on terrorism, Senator Hillary Clinton said that the government
should make it clear,
“to every nation in the world, you’re either
with us or you’re not, and there will be consequences.”2
Even
so-called conservative spokesmen have succumbed to the party line.
On October 31, The Young America’s Foundation based in Hendon,
Virginia –an organization that promotes conservative issues on the
nation’s college campuses –found it alarming that some professors
were questioning the wisdom of US interventionist policy.
One
professor was quoted as saying such a horrible thing as,
“We need to
think about the resentment all over the world felt by people who
have been victims of American military action.”
Another professor is
quoted as saying “You can’t plant hatred and not expect to reap
hatred.” Such statements are not acceptable to the Young America’s
Foundation, which views them as offensive and harmful to the war
effort.3
1 “In this conflict, there is no
neutral ground,” USA Today, Oct. 8, 2001, p. 5ª.
2 “Congress ready to pay the price to
hit culprits,” by William M. Welch and Kathy Kiely, USA Today, Sept.
13, 2001, p.5ª.
3 “Professors blame US for
terrorism,” by Jon Daugherty, WorldNetDaily.com, Article_ID=25137,
Oct. 1, 2001.
2. Most
American political leaders are now committed to world
government,
so the second prediction is that they will crow about
how America will not tolerate terrorism, but they will not act as
Americans. Instead, they will act as internationalists. They will
turn to
the UN to lead a global war against terrorism. They will
seek to expand the capacity of NATO and UN military forces. Although
American troops will provide the backbone of military action, they
ultimately will operate under UN authority.
Epilogue:
On March 11, 2002, President Bush gave an address
marking the passage of six months since the terrorist attack of
September 11. He said with satisfaction:
“A mighty coalition of
civilized nations is now defending our common security…. More than
half the forces now assisting the heroic Afghan fighters, or
providing security in Kabul, are from countries other than the
United States.”
In the past, when speaking of American involvement
in military conflict, it has been customary for the President to
conclude his remarks by asking for Divine blessing upon the United
States and its fighting forces. In this case, however, Mr. Bush
ended his speech with: “May God bless our coalition.”
When the US invaded Iraq, supposedly to prevent Hussein from using
weapons of mass destruction, countries at the UN that were aligned
with the Leninist camp did not support the action, but that made no
difference to the globalist Bush Administration staffed almost
entirely by members of
the CFR. They did not seek Congressional
approval to declare war, as is required by the US Constitution.
Instead, they said they were acting under authority of a United
Nations resolution. In other words, they were serving the UN, not
the US. In 2004, as the new Iraqi government was being hand picked by
the UN, the Bush Administration asked Congress to provide funding
for a permanent UN army of so-called “peacekeepers.” Called the
Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI), the proposal calls for
Americans to pay $600 million for recruiting and training 75,000
soldiers primarily from Third World countries.
3.
The third prediction is that the drive for national disarmament
will be intensified.
This will not lead to the elimination of weapons of mass
destruction, but merely to the transfer of those weapons to UN
control. It will be popularized as a means of getting nuclear and
bio-chemical weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
The
internationalists promoting this move will not seem to care that
many of the world’s most notorious terrorists now hold seats of
power at the UN and that the worst of them will actually control
these weapons.
Epilogue:
On October 20, 2001, former Soviet leader,
Mikhail Gorbachev, announced that nuclear and chemical disarmament
should become a top priority in the war on terrorism.1 On November
13, 2001, US President Bush and Russian President Putin announced
that, as a means of fighting global terrorism, they agreed to cut
their nuclear arsenals by two-thirds.2
These reductions will be
monitored by the UN.
Russia has broken every similar agreement in
the past, so there is no reason to expect that pattern to change. It must be remembered
that Putin is a former high-ranking officer of the Soviet KGB, which
created most of the international terrorist organizations.
1 “Gorbachev: Anti-Terror Coalition
Should Become Coalition for New World Order,” Associated Press,
October 20, 2001, FOXNews.com.
2 “US, Russia to sharply cut arsenals,” by Laurence McQuillan, USA
Today, Nov. 14, 2001, p. 1A.
4. The fourth prediction is that, if any
terrorists are captured, they will be brought before the UN World
Court and tried as international criminals.
This will create popular
support for the Court and will go a long way toward legitimizing it
as the ultimate high tribunal. The public will not realize the
fateful precedent that is being established – a precedent that will
eventually be used to justify bringing citizens of any country to
trial based on charges made by their adversaries in other countries.
Anyone who seriously opposes
the New World Order could then be
transported to The Hague in The Netherlands and face charges of
polluting the planet or committing hate crimes or participating in
social genocide or supporting terrorism.
Epilogue:
On November 14, 2001,
President Bush announced that terrorists are to be tried by US
military courts. However, at the time of the attack on September 11,
the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) had
not yet been ratified by enough nations to fully empower it. It was
still thirteen short of the sixty nations that the UN claims are
required. The rate of new ratifications was accelerated after
September 11, and the required number was reached within a few
months. The ICC came into existence in 2002, and the stage was
finally set for the fulfillment of this prediction.
In the February-March issue of Policy Review, CFR members
Abraham Soafer and Paul Williams explained that, once President Bush’s
military tribunals are established, the next step “could be
accomplished through a UN Security Council Resolution” to expand the
jurisdiction of the UN court to include terrorism. The problem,
however, was that the participating nations could not agree on a
definition of terrorism, which is understandable in light of the
fact that any common-sense definition would include many of the UN
leaders themselves.
In spite of the fact that the United States had previously signed
the ICC treaty, the Bush Administration announced on May 6, 2002,
that it had no legal obligation to honor it. The reason stated was,
not that the treaty endangered the rights of American citizens and
not that Americans might be hauled into foreign courts and judged by
magistrates who are hostile to American traditions, but because the
UN Security Council did not have sufficient supervisory authority in
the process. In making the announcement, Undersecretary-of-State
Marc Grossman intimated that, if this technicality can be worked
out, the US would support it.
However, on June 19, 2002, the Bush Administration proposed a UN
Security Council resolution stating that its real objection to the ICC was that political leaders and soldiers from the United States
and other countries carrying out so-called peacekeeping operations
around the world might be brought to trial for terrorism or war
crimes as a result of those military actions.
That is a valid
concern, but there is an equally valid concern that ordinary
citizens might also be become targets of criminal charges by
governments that are hostile to free expression of opinion or
political activities they consider to be against their best
interest. However, the Administration expressed no concern about the
rights of ordinary citizens. The sole concern was for government
officials and the soldiers who carry out their orders.
In early July of 2002, the Bush
Administration vetoed an extension of the UN military mission to
Bosnia because it was concerned that US personnel there might be
hauled before the ICC on war-crime charges. It promised to reverse
its vote if the US were granted immunity from such action. On July
11, the Administration accepted a compromise offer in which immunity
was extended for a period of twelve months.
The important point is
that, in spite of the widespread play in the media that the US was
opposing the ICC, the reality is that it was endorsing the ICC in
principle while only seeking to escape its authority for a little
while longer. 1 In June of 2003, The
UN Security Council extended
the exemption for another twelve months, but not without strong
opposition from other nations. It was clear that these extensions
could not be counted on indefinitely.
Commenting on the event,
Brigham Young law professor, Richard Wilkins, warned that the Court,
“is without sufficient checks and balances. It has the most powerful
prosecutor ever with the vaguest criminal statute passed anywhere. The I.C.C. leaves open to total
discretion of the prosecutor and the court the determining of what
the ‘crimes’ mean.” 2
On June 23, 2004, the UN Security Council,
driven by the news of US soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, refused
to approve another twelve-month extension of the exemption for US
personnel, and the Bush Administration declined to pursue the issue
further.
Technically, American soldiers in Iraq were still exempt
from ICC prosecution because the US was not yet a member of the
tribunal, and the Court’s jurisdiction is currently excluded from
countries that prosecute crimes by their own military.3 Nevertheless, the US was nudged another step closer to being subject
to the world court, and there can be no doubt about the ultimate
goal.
1 “International Criminal Court
Sellout,” by William Norman Grigg,” The New American, Aus., 12,
2002, p. 29.
2 “US safe from global court – for
now,” by Jon Dougherty, WorldNetDaily, June 7, 2003,
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33049.
3 “U.S. Drops Plan to Exempt G.I.s from U.N. Court,” by Warren Hoge,
New York Times, June 24, 2004.
The play is not yet over.
The CFR team that sets US policy is eager
to expand the authority of the UN, and that requires empowerment of
the ICC. The possibility of using captured terrorists as a means to
that end must be very tempting to them –provided only that they,
themselves, are exempt. We shall see.
5. The fifth prediction is that the FBI will be criticized for
failing to detect an attack as extensive and well coordinated as
this.
In reply, we will be told that the FBI was hampered by lack of
funding, low manpower, and too little authority. Naturally, that
will be followed by an increase in funding, additional manpower, and
greatly expanded authority.
Epilogue:
Following the September 11
attack, there was hardly a day that didn’t carry news about how the
Justice Department and the FBI had failed because of inadequate
funding, manpower, and authority.
On February 27, 2002, Attorney
General John Ashcroft testified before Congress and formally
requested nearly $2 billion in additional funding to expand FBI and
other internal-security manpower. As for expanded authority, see
item seven, below.
6. The sixth prediction is that,
eventually, it will be discovered that the FBI and other
intelligence agencies had prior warning
and, possibly, specific
knowledge of Tuesday’s attack; yet they did nothing to prevent it or
to warn the victims. This will be a repeat of what happened at the
bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City six years
previously.
Epilogue:
The evidence of prior
knowledge is now so extensive that it fills en entire chapter
entitled
The War on Terrorism, Part 4 of
The Future Is Calling.
7. The seventh prediction is that much of the war on terrorism will
be waged against Americans inside their own country.
New laws,
international treaties, and executive orders will severely restrict
travel, speech, privacy, and the possession of firearms. Americans
have consistently rejected these measures in the past, but there
will be much less opposition when they are presented in the name of
fighting terrorism.
Government agencies will demand to know
everything about us from our school records, our psychological
profiles, our buying habits, our political views, our medical
histories, our religious beliefs, the balances in our savings
accounts, our social patterns, a list of our friends – everything.
Any opposition to these measures will be branded as disruptive of
national unity and helpful to terrorism. This will not be unique to
America. The same program will be carried out in every nation in
what is left of the free world.
Epilogue:
On October 30, 2001, the Center for Disease Control
released what it called the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act
(MEHPA) and sent copies to legislators in all fifty states. The
legislators immediately began to incorporate its provisions into
their state laws. Under the banner of protecting Americans from the
effect of bio-terrorism, the original draft authorized governors to
declare a state of emergency without the approval of their
legislatures.
Under this emergency, the state can confiscate
personal property, including real estate, food, clothing, means of
transportation, and communications. It can control the distribution
of food, clothing, fuel, firearms, and most other commodities.
It
can also compel citizens to submit to testing for disease. If a
disease is identified or even suspected, or if a person refuses to
undergo testing, he can be quarantined in a government facility
where, presumably, he will be subject to compulsory treatment of
whatever kind decreed by the state. The model act declares that
state legislatures cannot even challenge their governors in any of
this for at least two months after the plan has been executed.
Also in October 2001, Congress adopted so-called “anti-terrorism”
legislation that was a classic example of “Doublespeak” right out of
Orwell’s 1984. In Orwell’s world, “war is peace, freedom is slavery,
and ignorance is strength.” In our world, Congress passed a bill to
expand the federal government into many areas forbidden by the
Constitution and unblinkingly called it the USA Patriot Act.
The
full title is the,
“Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act
of 2001.”
It could not have been named better by
Orwell, himself. In
addition to putting the government in charge of airport security, it
requires private citizens to inform on each other.
1 “Suspiciously timed bets against
airlines expire today,” by Greg Farrell, USA Today, Oct. 19, 2001,
p. 1B.
2 “Inmate says he told FBI about
danger to New York,” by Doris Bloodsworth, Orlando Sentinel, Jan. 6,
2002,
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/seminole/orl-asecterror06010602jan06.story?coll=orl%sD
Anyone engaged in a trade or business is now required
to file a report with the government if any customer spends $10,000
or more in cash. That is just the beginning. The bill easily can be
amended in the future to require a report of any “suspicious” or
“anti-government” activity.1
In this regard, Canada appears to have
taken the lead. On November 8, 2001, the Canadian parliament passed
a bill allegedly to control money laundering related to terrorism.
It was similar to a law that existed in Nazi Germany requiring all
lawyers to inform the government of suspicious anti-government
activity on the part of their clients.
The Canadian law goes much further.
Instead of involving only lawyers, it requires bankers, realtors,
investors, and other financial agents to report whenever they
suspect a client may be involved in money laundering. Money
laundering is defined by most governments today as any financial
transaction that is not reported to the tax collector, including
cash sales, tips, and barter. With that definition, literally
everyone can be suspected of money laundering. If people fail to
inform on each other, they are subject to a fine of $2-million and a
five-year jail sentence.2
On November 24, it was revealed that the
Canadian National Defense Act was amended in response to the
terrorist attack against the US and now gives the Canadian
government power to close off any geographical area, to forcibly
remove people from their homes inside that area, and be exempt from
any obligation to compensate them for their loss.
The justification
for doing so need not be for national security. The government can
act in the name of furthering “international relations.” That means,
of course, that there are no definable limits on this power.3
1 “New Federal Patriot Act Turns
Retailers into Spies against Customers,” by Scott Bernard Nelson,
The Boston Globe,
www.bcentral.com, Nov. 20, 2001.
2 Ottawa approach akin to Nazis, judge charges,” National Post, Nov.
9, 2001, p. A4.
3 “Anti-terror law gives military too much power: experts,” by Ian
Jack, National Post,
www.nationalpost.com, Nov. 24,
2001.
By
January, 2002 – back in the United States – Congress was on a fast
track rubber-stamping the following proposals emanating from
CFR
social engineers:
(1) conversion of the states’ National Guard units
into a federal police force
(2) establishing federal
control over local law enforcement and crisis-response
agencies
(3) extending federal authority over medical services
(4)
authorizing federal agencies to use phone taps, open postal mail,
and monitor email – without a warrant or even probable cause
(5) requiring all citizens to obtain a national ID card or
nationalized driver’s license tied into a federal and international
data bank.
Many of these measures were proposed
long before
September 11.
Their origin is a series of reports issued by a group
created in 1998 called The United States Commission on National
Security/21st Century – usually referred to as the
Hart-Rudman
Commission because its co-chairmen were former Senators
Gary Hart
and Warren Rudman.
It appeared to be a government study group but, in fact, it was a
front for
the Council on Foreign Relations. The Commission was
sponsored by Congressman Newt Gingrich, a member of the CFR. Both
Hart and Rudman were members of the CFR. The Commission based its
findings on the work of futurist author, Alvin Toffler, a member of
the CFR. Executive Director Charles Boyde and Study Group Director,
Lynn Davis, were members of the CFR.
Commissioners Lee Hamilton and
James Schlesinger (former Secretary of Defense) were members of the CFR. One of the better-known commissioners was
Leslie Gelb, who was
president of the CFR. Altogether, twelve of the twenty-nine
study-group members were from the CFR and virtually all of the key
positions were in their hands.
The first report released by the
Commission, entitled
New World Coming, said:
“States, terrorists,
and other disaffected groups will acquire weapons of mass
destruction and mass disruption, and some will use them. Americans
are likely to die on American soil, possibly in large numbers.”
The
report looked forward hopefully to a time when “the United Nations
is a chief instrument in solving transnational issues” and “assumes
a central role in conflict prevention and resolution.” A subsequent
report, entitled
Road Map for National Security, laid out plans for
creating a Homeland Security agency, converting the National Guard
into a federal police force, and most of the other measures
previously reviewed.
The rush toward a national and international
police state – in the name of fighting terrorism – has been
orchestrated by members of the CFR who, incidentally, intend to
manage it.
The FBI now is free to place wiretaps on telephones without a court
order. On November 21, 2001, the FBI announced its new eavesdropping
operation called “Magic Lantern” that allows it to secretly plant a
program into anyone’s computer so that every stroke made on the
keyboard will be reported back. That means the government now can
capture a record of everything you create on your computer,
including private passwords, encrypted files, and even deleted
files.1
1 “FBI develops ‘Trojan horse’
software for better eavesdropping,” by Ted Bridis, AP, Sacramento
Bee, www.sacbee.com, Nov. 21, 2001.
The National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 brought all
intelligence agencies under the control of a federal Director of
National Intelligence, established national standards for birth
certificates and drivers’ licenses, initiated biometric screening
systems for airports, and extended the FBI’s authority to wiretap
citizens’ phones even if they are not suspected of being connected
with a terrorist group, such people as dissidents and so-called lone
wolfs.
While the government clamors to prevent citizens from having any
secrets whatsoever, it moves in the opposite direction for itself.
President Bush issued Executive Order 13223 that forbids public
access to presidential papers, even those from previous
administrations. The only researchers who now have access to these
sources of historical data are those who are deemed to have a “need
to know” – which means only those who support the CFR spin on
important issues.
Even Congress is now outside the “need-to-know”
category. White House briefings to Congressional leaders on military
operations in the Middle East have been greatly curtailed and now
contain little more than what is given to the press. In typical
Orwellian fashion, we are told that, if America’s elected
representatives were to know what the President is doing as
Commander-in-Chief, it would be a threat to national security.
If
Congress is no longer entitled to know what the Executive branch of
government is doing, it is certain that mere citizens will have even
less access to information. Government agencies have been instructed
by President Bush to reject public requests for documents under the
Freedom of Information Act, and Justice Department lawyers have been
assigned to defend those rejections.
The excuse, of course, is that this action is necessary for
national
security against terrorism. During a press conference at the White
House on March 13, 2002, President Bush was asked why the newly
appointed Director of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, had refused to
testify before a bipartisan group of Congress.
The President’s reply
clearly revealed the new face of American government. It is no
longer comprised of three branches, each to check and balance the
power of the others. It is a throwback to the Old World concept of
supreme power in the hands of one man who rules from the top. The
purpose of Congress now is primarily to give advice to the President
– which he is free to ignore – and to authorize funding for his
programs.
The President said:
“He doesn’t have to testify. He’s part
of my staff. And that’s part of the prerogative of the executive
branch of government, and we hold that very dear…. We consult with
Congress all the time. I’ve had meaningful breakfasts with the
leadership in the House and the Senate.
I break bread with both
Republicans and Democrats right back here in the Oval Office and
have a good, honest discussion about plans, objectives, what’s
taking place, what’s not taking place…. We understand the role of
Congress. We must justify budgets to Congress…. [But] I’m not going
to let Congress erode the power of the executive branch.”
In mid-November, 2001, President Bush issued an executive order
authorizing terrorists to be tried in secret military tribunals
without any of the due-process legal protections afforded in
civilian courts. At the end of World War II, Nazi war criminals were
tried in public, but now, anyone deemed to be a terrorist can be
tried in secret, even when the death penalty is involved.
Who will be classified as terrorists?
The disturbing answer to that question was given by Congressman
Ron
Paul as he addressed the House of Representatives on November 29,
2001:
Almost all of the new laws focus on Americans citizens rather than
potential foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of
“terrorism,” for federal criminal purposes, has been greatly
expanded. A person could now be considered a terrorist by belonging
to a pro-constitutional group, a citizen militia, or a pro-life
organization. Legitimate protests against the government could place
tens of thousands of other Americans under federal surveillance.1
1 “Keep Your Eye on the
Target,” by the Honorable Ron Paul, Congressional Record, Nov. 29,
2001. (www.house.gov/congrec2001/cr112901.htm)
By
the end of November 2001, approximately 1,200 people had been
arrested as terrorist suspects or as sources of information
regarding terrorism. Formal charges were not brought against them.
They were not allowed to have legal representation. They were not
brought before a judge or given a hearing or trial. They were simply
arrested and imprisoned without any Constitutional authority to do
so.
Furthermore, no one outside of government even knows who they
are. Their names have been kept secret. This, allegedly, was to
protect their privacy. Incredible! These people were thrown into
prison and denied due process of law; yet we are expected to believe
that the government is concerned about their privacy?
All of these encroachments against freedom have been high-agenda
items among CFR-controlled government agencies for many years – long
before September 11. Most of them were originally promoted as
instruments for punishing tax evasion or controlling political
unrest. No one seriously believes that these measures would have
prevented the September attack. The war on terrorism has merely been
an excuse to put them into effect.
On February 27, 2002, the Federal Trade Commission ordered US
cell-phone companies to adopt technology enabling government
agencies to track the location of all phones. Since most customers
carry their phones with them, this allows the government to know
their exact location at all times. The official explanation was that
this will help locate victims of crime who make emergency 911 calls
and also locate stranded drivers who don’t know where they are. The
companies announced they would be 95% compliant by the year 2005.
8. The eighth prediction is that those who speak out against these
measures will be branded as right-wing extremists, anti-government
kooks, or paranoid militiamen.
The object will be to isolate all
dissidents from the mainstream and frighten everyone else into
remaining silent.
It is always possible to find a few genuine
crackpots; and, even though they will constitute less than one
percent of the movement, they will be the ones selected by the media
to represent the dissident viewpoint. A little bit of garbage can
stink up the whole basket. In spite of that, responsible dissenters
will still be heard.
If they begin to attract a following, they will
be accused of hindering the war effort, committing hate crimes,
terrorism, tax evasion, investment fraud, credit-card fraud, child
molestation, illegal possession of firearms, drug trafficking, money
laundering, or anything else that will demonize them in the public
mind. The mass media will uncritically report these charges, and the
public will assume they are true.
There is nothing quite so dramatic
as watching someone on the evening news being thrown against the
wall by a SWAT team and hauled off in handcuffs. TV viewers will
assume that, surely, he must be guilty of something. His neighbors
will shake their heads and say “… and he seemed like such a nice
person.”
Epilogue:
It was the notorious Nazi, Hermann Goering, who
explained the strategy this way:
“The people can always be brought
to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” 1
Indeed it does. On December 6, 2001, Attorney General
John Ashcroft
spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee and said:
“To those who
scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message
is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists – for they erode our
national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to
America’s enemies.” 2
1 G.M. Gilbert,
Nuremberg Diaries (New York: Farrar, Straus and Co., 1947), pp. 278,
279.
2 “Justice defends Ashcroft’s Congressional testimony, CNN,
Dec. 7, 2001,
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/07/inv.ashcroft.testimony.
9. One of the few remaining obstacles to
the New World Order is the Internet,
because it allows the public to
bypass the mass media and have access to unfiltered information and opinion. Therefore, the ninth prediction is that
laws will be enacted to restrict the use of the Internet. Child
pornography has long been the rallying cry to justify government
control. Now, the specter of terrorism and money laundering will be
added to the list. The real object will be to eliminate the voices
of dissent.
Epilogue:
The Public Safety and Cyber Security Enhancement
Act of 2001 offers a long list of valid concerns about genuine
Internet crimes and then proposes vast power to the federal
government to access private email messages without even having to
show probable cause.
All that would be required is to claim that the
action is for the purpose of public safety or national security, and
this could be done by any government agency, not just law
enforcement. It is now increasingly common for Internet Service
Providers to terminate the service of customers who are strong
critics of government policy, apparently under the assumption that
they are potential terrorists.
At present, such terminations
typically appear as a sudden breakdown in service that, for some
mysterious reason, cannot be restored by technicians. Most ISPs are
not willing to reject the requests of government agencies,
especially when the claim is being made that the action is in the
interest of national security.
10. The tenth prediction is that the war on terrorism will be
dragged out over many years or decades.
Like the war on drugs after
which it is patterned, there will be no victory. That is because
both of these wars are designed, not to be won, but to be waged.
Their function is to sensitize the population with fear and
indignation, to provide credible justification for the expansion of
government power and the
consolidation of that power into the UN.
Epilogue:
On October 21, 2001, General Richard B. Myers,
chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said:
“The fact that it
could last several years, or many years, or maybe our lifetimes
would not surprise me.”
Shortly after that, Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld wrote an editorial appearing in the New York Times
in which he said:
“Forget about ‘exit strategies’; we’re looking at
a sustained engagement that carries no deadlines.”
On March 13,
2002, President Bush emphasized this theme again when he told
reporters at a White House press conference:
“This is going to be a
long struggle. I keep saying that. I don’t know whether you all
believe me or not. But time will show you that it’s going to take a
long time to achieve this objective.”
11. The eleventh prediction is that it will take a long time to
locate Osama bin Laden.
A TV reporter can casually interview him at his mountain stronghold,
but the US military and CIA – with legions of spies and Delta forces
and high-tech orbiting satellites – they cannot find him. Why not?
Because they do not want to find him. His image as a mastermind
terrorist is necessary as a focus for American anger and patriotic
fervor. If we are to wage war, there must be someone to personify
the enemy. Bin Laden is useful in that role.
Of course, if his
continued evasion becomes too embarrassing, he will be killed in
military action or captured – if he doesn’t take his own life first.
Either way, that will not put the matter to rest, because bin Laden
is not the cause of terrorism. He is not even the leader of
terrorism. He is the icon of terrorism. If he were to be eliminated,
someone else would only have to be found to take his place.
1 “US war may last decades,” by Karen
Masterson, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau, Oct. 21, 2001, HousonChronicle.com.
So it is best to give each of
them as much longevity as possible. That is why terrorists like
Arafat, Hussein, Qadhafi and Khomeini, not only are allowed to
remain in power, but receive funding and military aid from the US
government. They are the best enemies money can buy.
If that sounds far-fetched, consider the words of
Fareed Zakaria,
Managing Editor of Foreign Affairs, the official journal of the
Council on Foreign Relations. (The goal of the CFR is the creation
of world government, and the great majority of US foreign-policy
planners – from the President on down – belong to it.)
In the
September 16, 1996, issue of Newsweek magazine, Zakaria said:
If Saddam Hussein did not exist, we would have to invent him. He is
the linchpin of American policy in the Mideast…. If not for Saddam,
would the Saudi royal family, terrified of being seen as an American
protectorate (which in a sense it is), allow American troops on
their soil? Would Kuwait house more than 30,000 pieces of American
combat hardware, kept in readiness should the need arise? Would the
king of Jordan, the political weather vane of the region, allow the
Marines to conduct exercises within his borders?… The end of Saddam
Hussein would be the end of the anti-Saddam coalition. Nothing
destroys an alliance like the disappearance of the enemy.1
Epilogue:
On November 15, 2001, USA Today reported:
“Several hundred Army
commandos have been posted at road blocks outside Kandahar to help
prevent Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters from escaping. The US soldiers
are interviewing captured Taliban commanders and setting up
surveillance gear, such as radar, heat detectors and cameras. …
Teams of two to 12 men are searching abandoned caves, tunnels and
buildings for maps, documents or computer disks that could lead to
bin Laden, officials said. From the skies, pilots are using heat
detectors to locate warm bodies in cold Afghan caves. CIA agents are
using cash to bribe sources for information about bin Laden’s
whereabouts, officials said.” 2
On November 26, the first strong
signal was given from the White House that, eventually, bin Laden
might be replaced by Saddam Hussein as the icon of terrorism.
“Saddam is evil,” said President Bush, and he hinted that, after the
conquest of Afghanistan, the war on terrorism may be carried to
Iraq.3 Meanwhile, bin Laden remains the preferred focus for hate.
On December 19, 2001, USA Today reported:
“One defense official
claimed a bin Laden escape could benefit the war on terrorism
because popular support for continued military action in other
regions would remain strong.” 4
Please re-read that statement!
1 “If he didn’t exist, we
would have to invent him,” by Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, Sept. 16,
1996, p. 43.
2 “Bin Laden hunt escalates as US aid
workers freed,” by Barbara Slavin, Jonathan Weisman and Jack Kelley,
USA Today, Nov. 15, 2001, p. 1A
3 “Bush turns America’s fury towards Saddam,” by Stephen Robinson,
News Telegraph, http://news.telegraph.co.uk, Nov. 26, 2001.
4 “Bombs halted; search continues,” by Jonathan Weisman, USA Today,
Dec. 19, 2001. p. 1A.
To justify the US attack on Iraq, Hussein was essential as a hated
enemy icon. After the occupation, however, he no longer served that
function, so when he was discovered cowering in a hole, there was no
reason not to take him into custody. Bin Ladin, however, is another
matter. Even though his name has faded from the daily news, he still
is remembered as the symbol of the terrorist attack on 9-11.
A rumor
was circulated in the Spring of 2004 that he already had been
captured and hidden away by US forces pending a spectacular
announcement to be timed with the November elections. That, of
course, would be a big boost for the Bush campaign and conceivably
could get him re-elected in spite of voter dissatisfaction over the
Iraqi occupation. It will be interesting to see if this rumor proves
to be true.
12. The twelfth prediction is that, when the Taliban is toppled in
Afghanistan, a new government will be established by the UN.
Like
Kosovo before it, a so-called UN “peacekeeping” military force will
remain behind, and the country will not be independent. There will
be talk about how it will represent the Afghan people, but it will
serve the agendas of the internationalists who will create it. The
sad country will become just another pin on the map showing the
location of yet one more UN province.
Epilogue:
Even before the Taliban had been toppled in
Afghanistan, the wheels were set in motion for a coalition
government to be organized under UN supervision. On November 28, on
the first day of the UN-sponsored negotiations to that end,
representatives of the Northern Alliance agreed to most elements of
the UN plan.
Even at that early date, UN spokesmen announced that
they intended to install a “temporary” multi-national military
force, under its control, after the fighting is over.1 After nine
days of negotiations, representatives of the various Afghan factions
agreed to the UN blueprint. The agreement specifically specified a
multinational “peacekeeping” force to be stationed in Kabul and
provided for its future expansion into the rest of the country.2
On
December 19, it was learned that a dozen countries were preparing to
contribute military forces to a UN “peacekeeping” force in
Afghanistan.3 On January 11, 2002, the peacekeeping force, under the
lead of British troops, was busy recruiting and training an army
made up predominantly of Afghans. Funding, supply, and command were
under tight UN control.4
1 “Deal near in Afghan talks,” by
Elliot Blair Smith, USA Today, Nov. 28, 2001, p. 1-A.
2 “Afghan factions sign landmark
deal,” BBC News,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1692000/1692695.stm,
Dec. 5, 2001.
3 “Bombs halted,” op. cit.
4 See “Afghanistan working to build national army,” by Tom Squitieri,
USA Today, January 11, 2002, p. 10A.
On January 28, 2002, the new Afghan leader
Hamid Karzai, who was brought into power by pressure from the US,
announced that he wanted the present multinational military force,
not just to remain in Kabul, but to expand throughout all of
Afghanistan.1
Two days later, he
addressed the UN Security Council and, once again, called for UN
military forces.2 After the US occupation of Iraq, the pattern was
exactly the same in that country. In June of 2004, when the US
turned over power to an alleged independent government, it was UN
Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi who appointed its Prime Minister, its
chairman of the National Congress, its two deputy presidents, and
all of its thirty-three cabinet members.
1 “Bush Rejects US
Peacekeepers,” by George Gedda, Associated Press, Yahoo News, Jan.
28, 2002,
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20020128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_afgh …
2 “Afghan Leader Asks UN for Bigger Security Force,” by Irwin Arieff,
Reuters News Service, Jan. 30, 2002,
http://www.reuters/printerfriendly.jhtml?StoryID=556954
On November 8, 2005, the UN Security Council voted to extend the
US-led military occupation of Iraq another year beyond its
previously announced withdrawal date.
13. The thirteenth prediction is that, while all this is going on,
US politicians will continue waving the American flag
and giving lip
service to traditional American sentiments in order to placate their
constituency who must never be allowed to know that they are being
delivered into slavery.
Yes, actions have consequences, and the long-range consequences of
this act of terrorism are even more devastating than the loss of
life and property that has been the focus of the media so far.
