The nsa and 9-11: language regulations and half-truths

The NSA continues to decline in explanatory note. Once again, their director now carried 9/11 as a core argument for a general monitoring of telecommunications

The outgoing NSA boss Keith Alexander gave a long interview on Sunday the American TV channel CBS a long interview, in which it went mainly for the premieges to the lauschard, also Americans to monitor. In the conversation, in the context of the renowned reporting broadcasting "60 minutes" was broadcast, General Alexander argued again with the striking of the 11. September 2001.

Specifically, it was about the case Hazmi / Midhar. The two al-Qaeda Campers Nawaf Al Hazmi and Khalid Al Midhar, which is charged to the deployment of the machine the Pentagon met, had lived in the run-up to the following for more long time in California. From there, they also telephoned with an Al Qaeda connection in Yemen. However, since the NSA has not yet had the opportunity to pay the number in the United States at that time, they have not intervened. Alexander words:

I think that was the factor that allows Midhar to control the plot safely from California. We had all the other clues, but no chance to find out that he was in California, during others in Florida and on other places.

Therefore, the competence of intelligence created after 9/11 is to collect telephone connection data of all Americans, so important. The same had already explained Alexander in the summer at a public appearance on an IT security conference.

However, this statement is several fragment. First, the case Hazmi / Midhar has been clarified only in ransatives and remains in the core full of contradictions. So the CIA knew from the entry of the two in the US, but blocked the transfer of this information to the state investigators from the FBI over months. The former antiTerror coordinator of the Bush administration Richard Clarke Mutmabt in this context, the CIA had tried to acquire Hazmi and Midhar as agents to hike al Qaeda.

The 9/11 commission under her director Philip Zelikov rated the backing of information by the CIA as a breakdown, but fired an employee who wanted to research exactly at this point (disabled investigations). Recent Analyzes of the authors Kevin Fenton and – Building on this – Peter Dale Scott now suggest intent.

I am now convinced that the explanation of Lawrence Wright, the CIA was a hidden surgery that is explained in January 2000, but she can not explain the renewed retention in the days before 9/11. Fenton analyzes a list of 35 years of which the two intentional debuts from January 2000 to 5. September 2001, not even one week before the aircraft managers, in this way. In his analysis, we see that the forelegal to two main groups. The motive for the early forelaways was it, "to cover a CIA operation that was already progressed". But after in summer 2001 "The system red flashed" And the CIA ejected an imminent attack, Fenton does not see any other explanation than that "the backup of the information session has become the intention of continuing the attacks progressing".

Peter Dale Scott

SCOTT offers a more differentiated explanation, but at the same time points out that intelligence services like the NSA from political reasons also manipulate data. In this context, he reminds of the so-called Tonkin incident of 1964, which served as an occasion for an escalation of the Vietnam War:

At that time, at a crucial moment, the NSA continued to lead a signal intelligence (signal intelligence), which – false – pointed out that it had given a north-riding namesic attack on two US destroyers. At the same time, the NSA held 107 SIGINT information access, which – correctly – pointed that it had not given northern Vietnamese attack. The then behavior of the NSA was reflected in the CIA: Both authorities knew the strong consensus within the Johnson government, which had already decided to provoke Northern Vietnam in hope so as to create a reason to a military reaction.

Peter Dale Scott

In addition to the unclear role of CIA, Hazmi and Midhar acted according to the knowledge of the parliamentary "9/11 Inquiry", the flow of the "9/11 Commission", apparently as part of a Saudi network in the US, possibly as agents of the Saudi secret service, a cooperation partner of the CIA. The corresponding 28-page section of an investigation report of 2003 is still secret today, which several US deputies now want to change according to current reports. Background of secrecy is apparently the protection of Saudi-American (OL-) relationships, which, however, currently lose relative importance.

To the deeper background of the entire 9/11-Falls in turn with rough probability Leveling with Saudi Arabia. Whose political cleavage from the USA imminent in the summer of 2001 is part of a motivational situation, which is still not respected yet (the Saudi special way – a motif for 9/11?To).

9/11 itself is as a shadow game with several levels, of which so far only parts have become visible. The statements of NSA boss Alexander appear rather essential before this complex background, because a serious focusing on the case Hazmi / Midhar can actually nobody nobody at the top of the US security apparatus, as the official theory of a 9/11 surprise attack at Clear considering so hardly upright.

At least, however, the General Alexander’s argumentation is in line with an internal language regime of the NSA known in the autumn of this year, according to which 9/11 is to be able to use offensive to justify the shared legal practice. Questionable, however, how long this "Talking point" still.

The book will be published by Paul Schreyer this week "FactsCheck 9/11 – another perspective 12 years later"


Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: