« Attorney Standards of Conduct Review: Mathew Davis, Lansing Michigan | testing's Blog | Deconstructing Defamation Suit 08-4340-GZ Gabrelli v. Center for Indpendent Media »
American Government's Legitimacy Problem After 9-11 and This Spreading Financial Crisis
AP's Pamela Hess identifies
Cofer Black as a former CIA official, now with Blackwater, who asserts nothing could have been done to avert the attacks during 9-11. Then why do we need this US government?
The AP article is a snapshot of a longer interview. The article does not adequately capture all the problems with the 9-11 investigation. This note outlines some of the inherent logic errors presented, and ends with questions for public discussion.
Cofer Black Fails To Explain Why Americans Were Not Arrested For Placing Explosives in WTC Towers
Cofer appears to narrowly focuses on the American actions in Afghanistan. This reasoning is flawed, and fails to address the physical evidence in New York city: There explosives inside the WTC towers 1, 2, and 3.
Once the US government took the issue of "who placed the explosives in the towers" off the table, the government inappropriately skewed the problem definition. A solution must be linked with a clear problem statement.
There should be a logical connection between US government plans and solutions. Yet, the fact finding from 9-11 has been abysmal. We have no straight story over which Americans placed the explosives in the New York City towers. This failed investigation raises more doubts about the plans implemented after 9-11. The wrong problem-statement means the implemented solutions are unrelated to real threats.
This President has not been held accountable for his leadership failure before 9-11. Congress is also in collusion. The House Judiciary Committee Chair has not timely conducted oversight, nor started an impeachment of the President.
The United States government has failed again to justify public supports on the national security and economic fronts. One problem is the failure of the US government to effectively conduct competent, timely impeachment investigations of the President and the events which occurred on his watch.
The US Constitution was enacted, in part, to provide for the common defense and prosperity. This US government is anti-thetical to those legal obligations. Not only has it failed to connect its military strategy to real threats; it's failed to adequately mitigate the real financial threats to our economic prosperity. 9-11 and this spreading financial crisis shows US government and its officers are the problem, not part of the solution.
The US government has a legitimacy problem. The American public is not required to remain loyal to incompetent American officials who refuse to timely assert power to defend the Constitution; nor are Americans required to remain loyal to a system of governance that rewards incompetence and refuses to challenge criminal activity. Our only legal obligation is to the Constitution.
Domestically Financed Weapon, Monitoring Systems To Check US Government
There is no law that says investment bankers cannot establish an independent system to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies. The President is only commander in Chief of the combat forces Congress calls into action. The President has no lawful authority to regulate or oversee oversight systems which the independent bankers establish to check the American government.
The American public is not required to remain loyal to domestic enemies of the US Constitution; nor keep silent about who in the intelligence community is linked with the 9-11 attacks and explosive placement.
Connection to Russian Defeat of NATO-related forces in Georgia
Part of the motivation of focusing on terrorism is to ensure continued funding flows to pet programs. However, the events in Georgia shows us the futility of narrowly defining all problems as terror-connected.
New NATO members in Europe have been chasing the "terror threat" and have not adequately modernized their conventional force weapon systems to chase real threats.
Without adequate fact finding into who really placed the explosives, the proposed force modernization plans are linked with an illusory problem. The funding is going to the wrong military programs.
The US government fails to adequately police itself. It refuses to do competent investigations. The US government officials leading the Congress and Executive branch have the mistaken belief that American citizens will 'go along' with illegal activity and reckless government actions.
Americans have not taken an oath to incompetence, but only the US Constitution. Arguably, the US government is the domestic threat to the US Constitution.
The US government will not develop national military strategy based on reality. The American public is not required to remain loyal to a dysfunctional, incompetent force planning system. The American public has options:
The discussion below shows why the above strategy is appropriate: The post 9-11 investigation has been reckless; and failed to consider the physical evidence of explosives. The core problem has been the collusion of the Congress and intelligence community in supporting an absurd threat-scenario, and fail to create a coherent national military strategy.
It is absurd, this many years after 9-11, for anyone to suggest, "Nothing could be done," without discussing the logical next questions: Then what confidence should Americans have in the force modernization plans that have been implemented after 9-11?
No American should have any confidence in the force modernization plans: Those plans are not linked with facts, real threats, or a proper analysis of what really failed during 9-11: The United States government. The problem isn't in Afghanistan, it is in the hearts and minds of the domestic rebels within the leading political parties who refuse to assert power, are blind to facts, and fail to confront the domestic enemies within their ranks.
1. Circular Argument
This story relies on a circular argument, asserting 9-11 could not have been averted because despite the US supposedly having 100 spies in Afghanistan, the US was unable to prevent the attacks.
The intelligence community is implicitly arguing that because 9-11 happened it could not have been averted; and because it could not be averted that our actions around the globe would not have prevented the attacks.
The intelligence community is, by default, asking Americans to believe the US government is both ineffectual in meeting its legal obligations; but cannot be challenged for its failure to meet is Constitutional obligations. That is not a supportable conclusion, nor the basis for leadership to compel any American to follow that reckless force planning.
2. Missing Afghan Information Should Redirect Investigation to NYC
The article assumes that those who were behind the attacks were in Afghanistan. The argument presupposes that the US had agents in Afghanistan and didn't detect anything.
Brilliant. Then in 2008, the question should be: Why isn't the actionable intelligence that should be linked with Afghanistan where it is supposed to be?
The Administration's answer was to more seriously abuse the prisoners in Afghanistan, not take a step back and ask the question: Are we looking for the evidence in the wrong place? Of course they were, because the goal wasn't to gather facts, but to create a pretext for action.
Contrast the speedy action after 9-11, with the glacial speed the US government took on war crimes and the financial issues. The US government will move quickly when it wants to.
Arguably, by moving quickly on the wrong issues, the US government officials ensured there was inadequate attention put on the financial issues. The US government's inherent goal in the wake of 9-11 wasn't to solve problems of 9-11, but to continue the confusion of 9-11.
3. The NSA Transcripts
It's a foolish argument to focus narrowly on Afghanistan or our supposed "100 spies" that were in that country. The explosives in the WTC towers were in New York, not in Afghanistan.
The answer to the riddle isn't in Afghanistan: It's in the NSA and their information of who was working before the 9-11 attacks to place the explosives, coordinate their readiness, and then stand-by, waiting for the destruction orders. Arguably, the WTC7 explosives were supposed to have been timed with a third aircraft collision, which never happened.
4. Wrong Force In Wrong Location
Arguing that the US has many forces in Afghanistan but is unable to find who was behind the attacks would ask that we assign super-human capabilities to people living in caves. This is absurd.
The correct answer is to find the intelligence which shows which Americans worked to placed the explosives in New York, not Afghanistan.
5. Red Herring of Enemy Leadership
Whether the Al Qaeda-Taliban leadership is or isn't captured has not relationship to whether the United States intelligence community does or doesn't fully cooperate with fact finding into their role in detecting who placed the explosives in New York.
Whether bin Ladin was or wasn't captured has no relationship to the Americans in New York who placed the explosives in the WTC towers. The hunt for bin Ladin has been a (partial) smokescreen from investigating the motivation of the intelligence community to not fully disclose their information about the explosives in the WTC towers 1, 2, and 7.
6. Appeal to Ignorance
The article absurdly argues, despite the vacuum of information about who placed the explosives, that 9-11 could not be averted. That assertion does not spring from a solid foundation of investigation, fact finding, or analysis but an argument based on ignorance.
US Government Cannot Meet Legal Obligations
Rather, this assertion raises material questions about the legitimacy of the US government. It has a legal obligation under this Constitution to provide for the Common defense. This many years after 9-11, the US government would have us believe that nothing could be done.
The issues raised in the article would reasonably ask us to raise the following questions:
A. Legitimacy
The AP article is a snapshot of a longer interview. The article does not adequately capture all the problems with the 9-11 investigation. This note outlines some of the inherent logic errors presented, and ends with questions for public discussion.
Cofer Black Fails To Explain Why Americans Were Not Arrested For Placing Explosives in WTC Towers
Cofer appears to narrowly focuses on the American actions in Afghanistan. This reasoning is flawed, and fails to address the physical evidence in New York city: There explosives inside the WTC towers 1, 2, and 3.
Once the US government took the issue of "who placed the explosives in the towers" off the table, the government inappropriately skewed the problem definition. A solution must be linked with a clear problem statement.
There should be a logical connection between US government plans and solutions. Yet, the fact finding from 9-11 has been abysmal. We have no straight story over which Americans placed the explosives in the New York City towers. This failed investigation raises more doubts about the plans implemented after 9-11. The wrong problem-statement means the implemented solutions are unrelated to real threats.
This President has not been held accountable for his leadership failure before 9-11. Congress is also in collusion. The House Judiciary Committee Chair has not timely conducted oversight, nor started an impeachment of the President.
The United States government has failed again to justify public supports on the national security and economic fronts. One problem is the failure of the US government to effectively conduct competent, timely impeachment investigations of the President and the events which occurred on his watch.
The US Constitution was enacted, in part, to provide for the common defense and prosperity. This US government is anti-thetical to those legal obligations. Not only has it failed to connect its military strategy to real threats; it's failed to adequately mitigate the real financial threats to our economic prosperity. 9-11 and this spreading financial crisis shows US government and its officers are the problem, not part of the solution.
The US government has a legitimacy problem. The American public is not required to remain loyal to incompetent American officials who refuse to timely assert power to defend the Constitution; nor are Americans required to remain loyal to a system of governance that rewards incompetence and refuses to challenge criminal activity. Our only legal obligation is to the Constitution.
Domestically Financed Weapon, Monitoring Systems To Check US Government
There is no law that says investment bankers cannot establish an independent system to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies. The President is only commander in Chief of the combat forces Congress calls into action. The President has no lawful authority to regulate or oversee oversight systems which the independent bankers establish to check the American government.
The American public is not required to remain loyal to domestic enemies of the US Constitution; nor keep silent about who in the intelligence community is linked with the 9-11 attacks and explosive placement.
Connection to Russian Defeat of NATO-related forces in Georgia
Part of the motivation of focusing on terrorism is to ensure continued funding flows to pet programs. However, the events in Georgia shows us the futility of narrowly defining all problems as terror-connected.
New NATO members in Europe have been chasing the "terror threat" and have not adequately modernized their conventional force weapon systems to chase real threats.
Without adequate fact finding into who really placed the explosives, the proposed force modernization plans are linked with an illusory problem. The funding is going to the wrong military programs.
The US government fails to adequately police itself. It refuses to do competent investigations. The US government officials leading the Congress and Executive branch have the mistaken belief that American citizens will 'go along' with illegal activity and reckless government actions.
Americans have not taken an oath to incompetence, but only the US Constitution. Arguably, the US government is the domestic threat to the US Constitution.
The US government will not develop national military strategy based on reality. The American public is not required to remain loyal to a dysfunctional, incompetent force planning system. The American public has options:
A. Fact Finding ContinuesDeconstructing the Argument
Conduct an independent inquiry to identify the specific manufacturer of those explosives placed in WTC 1, 2, and 7;
B. Identify Responsible Americans
Determine who was most likely responsible for placing those explosives in WTC towers 1, 2, and 7;
C. Enhance Oversight
Develop another system of investigations and oversight that will closely monitor the US government, intelligence community and media when they jointly refuse to engage in fact finding;
D. Bolster Independent Checks
Openly discuss a new system of oversight that will timely challenge reckless US government leadership; and
E. Independent Oversight of US Government
Establish an independent, credible defense system to protect the US Constitution from the enemies within the United States Government, contacting, and intelligence community.
The discussion below shows why the above strategy is appropriate: The post 9-11 investigation has been reckless; and failed to consider the physical evidence of explosives. The core problem has been the collusion of the Congress and intelligence community in supporting an absurd threat-scenario, and fail to create a coherent national military strategy.
It is absurd, this many years after 9-11, for anyone to suggest, "Nothing could be done," without discussing the logical next questions: Then what confidence should Americans have in the force modernization plans that have been implemented after 9-11?
No American should have any confidence in the force modernization plans: Those plans are not linked with facts, real threats, or a proper analysis of what really failed during 9-11: The United States government. The problem isn't in Afghanistan, it is in the hearts and minds of the domestic rebels within the leading political parties who refuse to assert power, are blind to facts, and fail to confront the domestic enemies within their ranks.
1. Circular Argument
This story relies on a circular argument, asserting 9-11 could not have been averted because despite the US supposedly having 100 spies in Afghanistan, the US was unable to prevent the attacks.
The intelligence community is implicitly arguing that because 9-11 happened it could not have been averted; and because it could not be averted that our actions around the globe would not have prevented the attacks.
The intelligence community is, by default, asking Americans to believe the US government is both ineffectual in meeting its legal obligations; but cannot be challenged for its failure to meet is Constitutional obligations. That is not a supportable conclusion, nor the basis for leadership to compel any American to follow that reckless force planning.
2. Missing Afghan Information Should Redirect Investigation to NYC
The article assumes that those who were behind the attacks were in Afghanistan. The argument presupposes that the US had agents in Afghanistan and didn't detect anything.
Brilliant. Then in 2008, the question should be: Why isn't the actionable intelligence that should be linked with Afghanistan where it is supposed to be?
The Administration's answer was to more seriously abuse the prisoners in Afghanistan, not take a step back and ask the question: Are we looking for the evidence in the wrong place? Of course they were, because the goal wasn't to gather facts, but to create a pretext for action.
Contrast the speedy action after 9-11, with the glacial speed the US government took on war crimes and the financial issues. The US government will move quickly when it wants to.
Arguably, by moving quickly on the wrong issues, the US government officials ensured there was inadequate attention put on the financial issues. The US government's inherent goal in the wake of 9-11 wasn't to solve problems of 9-11, but to continue the confusion of 9-11.
3. The NSA Transcripts
It's a foolish argument to focus narrowly on Afghanistan or our supposed "100 spies" that were in that country. The explosives in the WTC towers were in New York, not in Afghanistan.
The answer to the riddle isn't in Afghanistan: It's in the NSA and their information of who was working before the 9-11 attacks to place the explosives, coordinate their readiness, and then stand-by, waiting for the destruction orders. Arguably, the WTC7 explosives were supposed to have been timed with a third aircraft collision, which never happened.
4. Wrong Force In Wrong Location
Arguing that the US has many forces in Afghanistan but is unable to find who was behind the attacks would ask that we assign super-human capabilities to people living in caves. This is absurd.
The correct answer is to find the intelligence which shows which Americans worked to placed the explosives in New York, not Afghanistan.
5. Red Herring of Enemy Leadership
Whether the Al Qaeda-Taliban leadership is or isn't captured has not relationship to whether the United States intelligence community does or doesn't fully cooperate with fact finding into their role in detecting who placed the explosives in New York.
Whether bin Ladin was or wasn't captured has no relationship to the Americans in New York who placed the explosives in the WTC towers. The hunt for bin Ladin has been a (partial) smokescreen from investigating the motivation of the intelligence community to not fully disclose their information about the explosives in the WTC towers 1, 2, and 7.
6. Appeal to Ignorance
The article absurdly argues, despite the vacuum of information about who placed the explosives, that 9-11 could not be averted. That assertion does not spring from a solid foundation of investigation, fact finding, or analysis but an argument based on ignorance.
US Government Cannot Meet Legal Obligations
Rather, this assertion raises material questions about the legitimacy of the US government. It has a legal obligation under this Constitution to provide for the Common defense. This many years after 9-11, the US government would have us believe that nothing could be done.
Then why do we need this US government?When the US is serious about fact finding on 9-11, we'll have a hint about what really happened. Then we'll know whether 9-11 could or could not have been averted. However, US actions in Afghanistan before or after Sept 2001 would have no clear relationship to whether Americans were or were not operating in New York to place explosives.
The issues raised in the article would reasonably ask us to raise the following questions:
A. Legitimacy
If there is "nothing" that could have prevented the attacks, how does the US government explain how it is meeting it's legal obligations under the Constitution to provide for the common defense?B. Derailed Investigation
Once the President and Secretary of Defense discovered that they received no useful information from Afghanistan about what would have supposedly prevented 9-11, did they consider applying the same abuse techniques to American citizens to determine who in the intelligence community was responsible in New York for placing the explosives in the WTC towers?C. Flawed US Military Strategy
How does the US government justify expanded combat operations in Afghanistan because of the supposed link with 9-11, yet fail to discuss the the link Saudi Arabia supposedly has with the supposed terrorists?D. Wrong Basis for US Government Analysis
Who is arguing that the appropriate lens to look at the solution is through "counter-terrorism" rather than impeachment against US officials or treason trial against Americans in the intelligence community?E. Oath of Office: Refusing to Challenge Domestic Threat
What role did the domestic intelligence contracting community have in coordinating the explosive placement in WTC towers 1, 2, and 7?F. Flawed National Defense Planning
What set of facts is the US government and contracting community using to justify confidence that they have credibly exhausted all resources, established a clear problem statement, and are moving forward with a coherent strategy to address those identified problems?
Advertisement
Leave a comment