Heinberg on US aggression against Iran

April 2007 -- Richard Heinberg

Iran: We Will Know Soon…

For the past two years or so informed commentators (including Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter, among others) have been predicting a US air attack on Iran. MuseLetter for March 2005, titled “Onward to Iran,” summarized relevant information available at that time. In recent months concern over America’s intentions has grown even more intense, to the point that it has become the fulcrum of nearly every discussion about the future of world affairs.

As many have pointed out, an attack could have cataclysmic implications for the region, for the world economy, and not least for the oil import-dependent and nearly bankrupt US. Recently Rolling Stone magazine convened a panel of experts to assess the situation in Iraq (“Leaving Iraq: The Grim Truth,” by Tom Dickinson, March 7, www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13710030/leaving_iraq_the_grim_truth). The panel, which included such policy luminaries as Zbigniew Brzezinski (Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor) and Richard Clarke (counter-terrorism advisor to four presidents), concluded that the war in Iraq is lost. In the course of the discussion, Bob Graham, former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made the following comment: “This administration seems to be getting ready to make—at a much more significant, escalated level—the same mistake we made in Iran that we made in Iraq. If Iraq has been a disaster, this would be multiple times Iraq. The extent to which this could be the horror of the twenty-first century is hard to exaggerate.”

Recent crucial events include the passing of the UN-imposed deadline for Iran to halt uranium enrichment, the stationing by the US of two aircraft carrier battle groups—the Eisenhower and the Stennis—in the Persian Gulf, a meeting in Baghdad attended by delegations from both Iran and the US, and the imposition of toughened economic sanctions by the UN Security Council.

The conjunction of the negotiations in Baghdad over regional issues (the US cannot extricate itself from Iraq without help from Iran and Syria) with the successful drive for increased UN economic sanctions (a drive led, of course, by the US) suggests that conflicting policies are being pursued in Washington. This appearance may result from an intentional effort to pressure the Iranians at the bargaining table. However, another interpretation of the situation is gaining ground among curious observers—that there is no single pilot steering the US ship of state, and that at least two groups are struggling to control the wheel (see Kaveh L Afrasiabi, “US and Iran: Squint-eyed double-dealing,” Asia Times online, March 17, www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IC17Ak01.html)

On one side of the policy battle are Dick Cheney and the remaining administration neoconservatives, now confined mostly to the vice president’s office. On the other side are the so-called foreign policy realists or pragmatists—Brent Scowcroft, James Baker III, Henry Kissinger, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, among others—many of whom worked for the senior Bush when he was president. Condoleeza Rice appears, at least sometimes, to side more with the latter than with Cheney. The “decider” himself is caught in the middle: upon the recent release of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report—a salvo from the realists—he appeared to snub its findings. Some analysts see family psychology playing a role here: the younger Bush reportedly hated early life under his father’s shadow and dreads being considered a failure (which he was, in previous careers); hence his resistance to pragmatic suggestions regarding a troop pullout from Iraq may be motivated as much by adolescent psychology as military strategy. George the younger must prove himself—at whatever cost to the nation or the world. If this view of the situation is at all accurate, the fate of the planet may hang upon a family drama whose tragic overtones bridge Macbeth and Dallas.

Recent events suggest that the pragmatists are advancing, even if they have not yet gained the upper hand. Donald Rumsfeld’s departure was a clear indication of this, as was his replacement by ISG member Robert Gates as the new defense secretary. Moreover, several Army generals, incensed by the damage done to the US military’s fighting capacity by the prolonged and poorly managed Iraq campaign, have reportedly threatened to resign if the order comes to attack Iran.

The arguments against such an attack are overwhelming. It would solve nothing strategically: it would not end Iran’s nuclear program and would not result in regime change. While arguably it would be of short-term political benefit to the administration (which could use the event to rally the public, crack down on dissent, and lash out at the political opposition in Congress), in order to actually mount an attack it would be necessary to persuade many outside the president’s and vice president’s offices of the need for such action. Cheney can’t fly the planes himself; indeed, several branches of government would have to participate in—or at least refrain from sabotaging—the attack plans. And to sell those plans to senior officers in the armed forces, as well as high officials in the CIA and the State Department, there would need to be some perceived benefit or threat sufficiently compelling so as to override the general war-weariness and Cheney-wariness that has gripped Washington.

Meanwhile, however, it appears that the preparations for such an attack continue. On this score, Seymour Hersh’s ongoing reportage in The New Yorker is essential reading. His latest, “The Redirection” (March 5, www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh), details how the Bush administration is now cementing new alliances with radical Sunni organizations in order to undermine Iranian influence in Iraq. Hersh quotes Flynt Leverett, a former Bush administration National Security Council official, as saying, “This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.”

Hersh notes that the US military has arrested and interrogated scores of Iranians within Iraq in an effort to build a case against Tehran. Clandestine US operations are ongoing in Iranian territory, and “a special planning group has been established in the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged with creating a contingency bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented, upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours.” This Iran planning group has recently “been handed a new assignment: to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq. Previously, the focus had been on the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities and possible regime change.”

Perhaps the most ominous bits of recent news concern Russia: for the past few weeks that nation has been delaying delivery of nuclear fuel to Iran, and is now withdrawing all 2000 of its technicians at the Bushehr nuclear plant. This is predicated on the excuse that Iran is in arrears on payments for Russian fuel and services, despite the fact that 90 percent of the bills have been paid. Speculation is swirling that Russia, anticipating a near-term US or Israeli air bombardment, is moving its trained personnel out of harm’s way, and minimizing nuclear material on site so as to reduce the release of deadly radiation from the attacks.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s March 23 cancellation of an anticipated UN speech also suggests that something is up—but what? Is this a response to political problems back home (his continued tenure as president is far from given), or does it have to do with international relations involving the US, the UK, and Iraq—perhaps knowledge of an impending attack?

So, we are faced with three questions: whether a US air attack on Iran will occur; and, if that is now inevitable, how it will be justified and how it will unfold.

On the first question there is a division of opinion among analysts, with Hersh and Ritter contending that an attack is inevitable, and others like Henry C. K. Liu (of Asia Times online) arguing that the US is already beaten in Iraq, that it has nothing to gain from expanding the war to Iran, and that the tough talk and aircraft carrier deployments are intended only to gain a better bargaining position vis-à-vis Tehran when it comes time to decide Iraq’s future.

While the first question is by far the more important, the answer to the second and third will nevertheless be instructive if the Hersh/Ritter analysis is correct. In order for the attack to proceed, a pretext will be necessary, and the nature and strength of the pretext will reveal a great deal about the behind-the-scenes strengths and weaknesses of the various players, and give clues to how events might proceed. Here are the main possibilities:

1. Domestic terrorism. Zbigniew Brzezinski, in remarkable testimony on the first of February to the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, said: “A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the [UN] benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq, or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran; culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”

The inclusion by Brzezinski of the phrase “a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran” caught the attention of many, especially those who believe that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were in some way facilitated by the current administration in order to provide a basis for its “war on terror” and the invasion of Iraq. Clearly, another domestic terrorist incident, this one tied somehow to Iran, would galvanize vociferous domestic support for military action against that nation, thus rendering it the most effective possible pretext for an attack.

However, absent real Iranian terrorist activity within the US, it is a pretext that would require a significant level of secrecy and coordination to arrange. If this pretext materializes, it will likely signify that intelligence units answering directly to the vice president’s office and operating independently of the CIA are still highly capable, and that the ability of the remaining neocon factions to organize internal government support for highly risky secret operations is high. This would be the worst scenario in terms of its impact on the future of Americans’ civil liberties.

2. A (faked?) Iranian attack on a US vessel or other asset in the Middle East. This would likewise constitute a very strong pretext for war, and would likewise be difficult to arrange—though perhaps easier than a major domestic terrorist incident. American vessels would have to provoke Iranian forces into attacking them, or an Iranian attack would have to be staged (like the Tonkin Gulf incident that served as the pretext for the expansion of American military involvement in Vietnam). A somewhat convoluted but intriguing scenario: Israeli warplanes bomb Iranian nuclear research facilities (see pretext number 3 below), then sink an American vessel on their way home; the incident is blamed on the Iranians. The notion of Israel attacking an American military ship might seem farfetched, but there is a precedent: In 1967 Israeli forces attacked the USS Liberty, a reconnaissance vessel, killing 34 US sailors and injuring 172. That incident, possibly an effort to prevent the Liberty from picking up signals that that would have tipped off the US to an Israeli military push into Syria the following day, was promptly covered up by both nations.

In its mildest form, this pretext might consist simply of a seizure by Iranians of British or American sailors—which of course actually occurred on March 23, as well as on an earlier occasion in 2004. Such an action is easy to provoke, but making it the pretext for a large-scale attack would require some effort. The fact that the US has kidnapped several Iranians within Iraqi territory over the past few months (as detailed by Hersh) is of course relevant to the assessment of whether equivalent Iranian behavior constitutes a pretext for war, but it has hardly been noted by most of the Western press.

3. An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, with an Iranian military response. This would again be a very strong pretext for US action, and there is the widely discussed historical precedent of Israel’s aerial bombardment of the Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad in 1981 (in that instance, the French withdrew all of their technicians prior to the bombing—is Russia following the same script today?).

In this case, the Democratic Party leaders in America would not only support a military attack on Iran; they would lead the charge. Never mind if it were a disastrous policy with little support from the public—few if any politicians in Washington would criticize it. (In fact, there is very little Democratic opposition to hostilities with Iran with or without direct Israeli involvement.)

There is support at high levels in Israel for such an attack: following the disastrous campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon last year, some Israeli policy analysts drew the lesson that the largely Shi’ite organization cannot successfully be countered until its support from Iran is cut off. But Israeli military and intelligence officials are by no means unanimous in backing such an attack: it could easily boomerang, like the campaign in Lebanon, leaving Israel in a much worse strategic position, further isolated within an angry, destabilized Middle East.

There are also diplomatic challenges to the plan: for it to work, Israeli planes would have to over-fly the airspace of Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and/or Turkey. From the viewpoint of the Arab masses, leaders of these nations would be seen as colluding with Israel in its attack if they gave permission or failed to launch anti-aircraft missiles or interceptor jets. Therefore Arab leaders are likely to resist participation in the plan, and US diplomatic efforts would be necessary to overcome such resistance. Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-dominated nations in the region are already lined up against Tehran, partly as a result of US lobbying.

Moreover, in order for the plan to succeed, Iran would have to respond to the attack by firing missiles into Israel or at US warships. This is not a given, as the wisest thing for Tehran to do tactically would be to play the victim and respond only diplomatically. It is useful to remember that it is not hot-headed Ahmedinejad who has final authority over military decisions for the country, but the more moderate-minded supreme guide Ayatollah Khamenei. Nevertheless, Iranian leaders have vowed to respond with force, and options include closing the Strait of Hormuz and lobbing missiles not only at cities in Israel, but also at US military garrisons in Iraq and major oil terminals in Saudi Arabia.

4. Violence in Iraq that can be pinned on Iran. This would be easy enough to arrange, since there is plenty of violence in Iraq on all sides. But it would be a relatively weak pretext, and domestic support within the US for an attack in response would not be a given.

In any case, the situation within Iraq is of vital interest to both the US and Iran, and the interaction of those interests is complex and unstable. It is in many ways to Iran’s advantage to keep the US bogged down by sectarian violence, while simultaneously promoting the maintenance of a unified, Shi’ite-led Iraqi government. Iran seeks to keep Washington in a no-win stalemate, where the latter cannot withdraw its troops yet cannot impose “democracy” without incurring politically and militarily unbearable costs. The end result could be a precipitous decline in American influence, and not only in the Middle East. But this is a risky strategy for Tehran, since overt Iranian intervention in southern Iraq would offer Washington the pretext for attacks on Iranian research and military installations. It is also risky because an overt attempt by Tehran to assert leadership in Shi’ite southern Iraq could, in Henry Liu’s words (in “Iran and the Failed US Iraq Policy,” Asia Times online, March 21, www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IC21Ak07.html), “cause a backlash and damage the spiritual prestige and theological influence of Tehran and Qom in Shi'ite communities in the wider Arab world, alienating the very elements Iran aims to rally against the US infidel.”

Meanwhile, as noted above, Seymour Hersh in “The Redirection” reports that the US, nervous about growing Iranian power in the region, is increasingly supporting Sunni Islamist groups both in and outside of Iraq, hoping to oppose them against Shia groups aligned with Tehran—a strategy that likewise raises serious long-term risks, since most of the violence currently being directed against the US occupation comes from the Sunni-led resistance. The US could, in other words, merely be funding and arming its own worst enemies.

5. Iranian progress on a nuclear weapon. This would be difficult to prove or disprove, making it the weakest of the available pretexts. However, it might be the easiest to arrange: all that would be necessary would be another presentation before the UN like Colin Powell’s prominent performance prior to the Iraq invasion. Grainy satellite photos could be displayed, with appropriate captions for the benefit of those who cannot immediately tell an underground nuclear weapons laboratory from an ordinary railroad tunnel. Unfortunately, such a presentation, by itself, would likely fail to garner the needed degree of domestic or international support for an attack, given its well-remembered precedent.

6. An accident or misunderstanding. Just by ratcheting up tensions and putting more forces in the region, the US makes a miscalculation on either side more likely. Of course, if either side wants and intends a miscalculation to occur, this becomes much more likely. Once events have proceeded to the level of pretext 2, then they acquire an unstoppable momentum of their own.

Currently events are unfolding very quickly. Things to watch over the days ahead include the resolution of the matter of the seized British sailors; Iran’s response to the new UN sanctions; and the fate of the second round of official discussions, scheduled for early April in Turkey, which is expected to include Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Iranian and Syrian counterparts.

If an attack does ensue, the immediate consequences could be moderate to catastrophic—with the moderate effects being more likely, since everyone has had time to think through the various scenarios and is likely to follow through on scripted actions and responses. The longer-term prognosis is not as favorable, as those scripted responses go only so far. The US, Europe, Russia, China, and India all have vital interests in the region, and a general explosion of Sunni-Shia violence could draw these interested parties into conflict. At the very least, we are likely to see an expansion of the chronic violence in Iraq spreading outward throughout the Middle East and perhaps Central Asia as well, with an arc of chaos extending from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia. The worst case is painful to contemplate. If the US and/or Israel follow through on their implied threats to deal militarily with Iran, this may constitute the most dangerous and fateful international gamble in decades.

====================

No, the Iran Oil Bourse is not a casus belli… by F. William Engdahl -- March 10, 2006 A number of writings have recently appeared with the thesis that the announced plans of the Teheran government to institute a Teheran Oil Bourse, perhaps as early as this month, is the real hidden reason behind the evident march to war on Iran from the Anglo-American powers. The thesis is in our opinion mistaken for many reasons, not the least, that war on Iran has been in planning since the 1990’s, as an integral part of the US Greater Middle East strategy. More significantly, the Oil Bourse argument is a Red Herring that diverts attention from the real geopolitical grounds behind the march towards war which have been detailed on this website, including my piece, ‘Calculating the Risk of War in Iran’ which was posted on GlobalResearch.ca on January 29, 2006 In 1996, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, two neo-conservatives later to play an important role in formulation of Bush Administration Pentagon policy in the Middle East, authored a paper for then-newly-elected Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. That advisory paper, ‘A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm,’ called on Netanyahu to make a ‘clean break from the peace process.’ They also called on Netanyahu to strengthen Israel’s defenses to better confront Syria and Iraq, and to go after Iran as the prop of Syria. More than a year before President Bush declared Operation Shock and Awe against Iraq, he made his now infamous January 2002 State of the Union address to Congress in which he labelled Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, as the ‘Axis of Evil’ trio. This was well before anyone in Teheran was even considering establishing an oil bourse to trade oil in various currencies. The argument by those who believe that the Teheran Oil Bourse would be the casus belli, the trigger pushing Washington down the road to potential thermonuclear annihilation of Iran, seems to rest on the claim that by openly trading oil to other nations or buyers in Euros, Teheran would set into motion a chain of events in which nation after nation, buyer after buyer, would line up to buy oil no longer in US dollars but in Euros. That in turn, so goes the argument, would lead to a panic selling of dollars on world foreign exchange markets and a collapse of the role of the dollar as reserve currency, one of the ‘pillars of Empire.’ Basta! There goes the American Century down the tubes with the onset of the Teheran Oil Bourse…Reality is a little different. Some background considerations That argument fails to convince for a number of reasons. First, in the case of at least one of the Oil Bourse theory writers, their argument is based on a misunderstanding of the process which I described in my book, A Century of War, regarding the creation in 1974 of ‘petrodollar recycling’ in the wake of the orchestrated 400% OPEC oil price hike, a process with which then-US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was deeply involved. The dollar then did not become a ‘petrodollar’ although Kissinger spoke about the process of ‘recycling petrodollars.’ Instead what he referred to was the initiation of a new phase of US global hegemony in which the ‘petrodollar’ export earnings of OPEC oil lands would be recycled into the hands of the major New York and London banks and re-lent in form of dollar loans to oil deficit countries like Brazil or Argentina, creating what soon came to be known as he Latin American Debt Crisis. The dollar at that time had been a fiat currency since August 1971 when President Richard Nixon first abrogated the Bretton Woods Treaty and refused to redeem US dollars held by foreign central banks for gold bullion. The dollar floated against other major currencies, falling more or less until it was revived by the turbo change of the 1973-4 oil price shock. What the 1973 oil shock achieved for the sagging dollar was a sudden injection of global demand from nations confronted with 400% higher oil import bills. At that time, by postwar convention and convenience, as the dollar was the only reserve currency held around the world other than gold, oil was priced by all OPEC members in dollars as a practical exigency. With the 400% price rise, nations such as France, Germany, Japan and other importers suddenly found reason to try to buy their oil directly in their own currencies—French Franc, German Deutschemarks or Japanese Yen—in order to lessen the pressure on their rapidly declining reserves of trade dollars. The US Treasury and Pentagon made certain that did not happen, partly with some Kissinger secret diplomacy, bullying threats, and a whopping big US military agreement with the key OPEC producer, Saudi Arabia. At that time it helped that the late Shah of Iran was seen in Washington to be a vassal of Kissinger. The point was not that the dollar became a ‘petro’ currency. The point was that the reserve status of the dollar, now a paper currency, was bolstered by the 400% increase in world demand for dollars to buy oil. But that was only a part of the dollar story. In 1979, following the accession to power of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, oil prices shot through the roof for the second time in six years. Yet, paradoxically, later that year the dollar began a precipitous free-fall, not rise. It was no ‘petrodollar.’ Foreign dollar holders began dumping their dollars as a protest to the foreign policies of the Jimmy Carter Administration. It was to deal with that dollar crisis that Carter was forced to bring in Paul Volcker to head the Federal Reserve in 1979. In October 1979 Volcker gave the dollar another turbo-charge by allowing interest rates in the US to rise some 300% in weeks, to well over 20%. That in turn forced global interest rates through the roof, triggered a global recession, mass unemployment and misery. It also ‘saved’ the dollar as sole reserve currency. The dollar was not a ‘petrodollar.’ It was the currency of issue of the greatest Superpower, a superpower determined to do what it needed to keep it that way. The F-16 dollar backing Since 1979 the US power establishment from Wall Street to Washington has maintained the status of the dollar as unchallenged global reserve currency. The role, however, is not a purely economic one. Reserve currency status is an adjunct of global power, of the US determination to dominate other nations and the global economic process. The US didn’t get reserve currency status by a democratic vote of world central banks, nor did the British Empire in the 19th Century. They fought wars for it. For that reason, the status of the dollar as reserve currency depends on the status of the United States as the world’s unchallenged military superpower. In a sense, since August 1971 the dollar is no longer backed by gold. Instead, it is backed by F-16’s and MI Abrams battle tanks, operating in some 130 US bases around the world, defending liberty and the dollar. A Euro challenge? In order for the Euro to begin to challenge the reserve role of the US dollar a virtual revolution in policy would have to take place in Euroland. First the European Central Bank, the institutionalized, undemocratic institution created by the Maastricht Treaty in order to maintain the power of creditor banks in collecting their debts, would have to surrender power to elected legislators. It would then have to turn on the Euro printing presses and print Euros like there was no tomorrow. That is because the current size of the publicly-traded Euroland government bond market is still tiny in comparison with the huge US Treasury market. As Michael Hudson explains in his brilliant and too-little studied work, ‘Super Imperialism,’ the peverse genius of the US global dollar hegemony was the realization, in the months after August 1971, that US power under a fiat dollar system was directly tied to the creation of dollar debt. The debt and US trade deficit was not the ‘problem,’ they realized. It was the ‘solution.’ The US could print endless quantities of dollars to pay for foreign imports of Toyotas, Hondas, BMW’s or other goods in a system in which the trading partners of the USA, holding paper dollars for their exports feared for a dollar collapse enough to continue to support the dollar by buying US Treasury bonds and bills. In fact in the thirty years since abandoning gold exchange for paper dollars, the US dollars in reserve have risen by a whopping 2,500% and grows at double-digit rates today. This system continued into the 1980’s and 1990’s unchallenged. US policy was one of crisis management coupled with skilful and coordinated projection of US military power. Japan in the 1980’s, fearful of antagonizing its US nuclear umbrella provider, bought endless volumes of US Treasury debt even though they lost a King’s ransom in the process. It was a political, not an investment decision. The only potential challenge to the reserve role of the dollar came in the late 1990’s with the European Union decision to create a single currency, the Euro, to be administered by single central bank, the ECB. Europe appeared to be emerging as a unified, independent policy voice of what Chirac then called a multi-polar world. Those multi-polar illusions vanished with the unpublicized decision of the ECB and national central banks not to pool their gold reserves as backing for the new Euro. That decision not to use gold as backing came amid a heated controversy over Nazi gold and alleged wartime abuses by Germany, Switzerland, France and other European countries. Since the shocks of September 11, 2001 and the ensuing declaration of a US global War on Terror, including a unilateral decision to ignore the United Nations and the community of nations and go to war against a defenceless Iraq, few countries have even dared to challenge the dollar hegemony. The combined defense spending of all nations of the EU today pales by comparison to the total of current US budgeted and unbudgeted defense spending. US defense outlays will reach an official, staggering level of $663 billion in the current Fiscal 2007 year. The combined EU spending amounts to a mere $75 billion, with tendency declining, in part owing to ECB Maastricht deficit pressures on its governments. So today, at least for the present, there are no signs of Japanese, EU or other dollar holders engaging in dollar asset liquidation. Even China, unhappy as she is with Washington bully politics, seems reluctant to rouse the American dragon to fury. The Origins of the Oil Bourse The idea of creating a new trading platform in Iran to trade oil and to create a new oil benchmark crude apparently originated with the former Director of the London International Petroleum Exchange, Chris Cook. In a January 21 article in the Asia Times, Cook explained the background. Describing a letter he had written in 2001 to the Governor of the Iranian Central Bank, Dr Mohsen Nourbakhsh, Cook explained what he advised then: ‘In this letter I pointed out that the structure of global oil markets massively favors intermediary traders and particularly investment banks, and that both consumers and producers such as Iran are adversely affected by this. I recommended that Iran consider as a matter of urgency the creation of a Middle Eastern energy exchange, and particularly a new Persian Gulf benchmark oil price. ’It is therefore with wry amusement that I have seen a myth being widely propagated on the Internet that the genesis of this "Iran bourse" project is a wish to subvert the US dollar by denominating oil pricing in euros. ’As anyone familiar with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will know, the denomination of oil sales in currencies other than the dollar is not a new subject, and as anyone familiar with economics will tell you, the denomination of oil sales is merely a transactional issue: what matters is in what assets (or, in the case of the United States, liabilities ) these proceeds are then invested.’ A full challenge to the domination of the dollar as world central bank reserve currency entails a de facto declaration of war on the ‘full spectrum dominance’ of the United States today. The mighty members of the European Central Bank Council well know this. The heads of state of every EU country know that. The Chinese leadership as well as Japanese and Indian know that. So does Vladimir Putin. Until some combination of those Eurasian powers congeal in a cohesive challenge to the unbridled domination of the USA as sole superpower, there will be no Euro or Yen or even Chinese Yuan challenging the role of the dollar. The issue is of enormous importance, as it is vital to understand the true dynamics bringing the world to the brink of possible nuclear catastrophe today. As a small ending note, a good friend in Oslo recently forwarded me an article from the Norwegian press. At the end of December, Sven Arild Andersen, Director of the Oslo Bourse, announced he was fed up with depending on the London oil bourse trading oil in dollars. Norway, a major oil producer, selling most of its oil into Euro countries in the EU, he said, should set up its own oil bourse and trade its oil in Euros. Will NATO member Norway become the next target for the wrath of the Pentagon? * F. William Engdahl is a Global Research Contributing Editor and author of the book, ‘A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order,’ Pluto Press Ltd. He may be contacted through his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.

USA used VX Nerve Gas in Vietnam ...

USA used VX Nerve Gas in Vietnam ...

This sidebar is from Earth magazine, April 1972, pages 26-27:

"Type VX"

by Gerard Van der Leun

Early in 1968 the scientists at the Pentagon's Rocky Mountain Arsenal just outside of Denver, Colorado were busy experimenting with something new in our chemical and biological arsenal. In this instance it was an especially toxic form of nerve gas called "Type VX." The research project was called "Waterfall."

Type VX nerve gas kills by coming in contact with the skin or by being inhaled. A single drop, if not immediately removed, will result in vomiting, involuntary defecation, convulsions, and a complete paralysis of the central nervous system that ends in death. From contact to death the time elapsed is about ten minutes. Type VX is slightly more sophisticated than the bow and arrow. At the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in 1968, scientists began to wonder just how much more sophisticated it really was.

One of the difficulties for generals and scientists in developing and evaluating the effects of a new type of nerve gas is that both international law and basic human decency forbid its use in war. But international law and human decency are never great barriers for the Pentagon to leap. Thus it was that the Rocky Mountain Arsenal's Research and Development Division received permission from the Pentagon and the Department of Defense to have U.S. Special Forces in Indochina provide them with guinea pigs -- in the form of North Vietnamese troops. At that moment "Project Waterfall" became known as "Project Red Cap" and changed from a research project to a military operation.

The Pentagon required that the target troops be at known enemy bases along the Ho Chi Minh Trail in northeastern Cambodia. If the Pentagon was satisfied that the selection of the troops and area would have little chance of including civilians, it would allow the Air Force to drop Type VX gas canisters on the target troops. It was, to say the least, 'a golden opportunity' to observe how real nerve gas in real combat conditions made real 'enemy' really dead.

A Special Forces Unit operating from a base located in Cambodia and known as 'B57' selected a target on the K2 Front. The target was located about ten miles inside Northeast Cambodia. It was an equipment recovery station operated by the 94th North Vietnamese Army recovery group. In late June or July of 1968 the United States Air Force dropped two fifty-pound canisters of Type VX nerve gas on this outpost. Each canister contained an explosive charge that shattered the casing at a pre-set altitude and released the lethal compound over a wide area.

Shortly after the drop had been made the Military Assistance Command -- Vietnam (MACV) was alerted by the Department of Defense to issue confidential bulletins to high-level military commanders in the field. The bulletins warned the commanders to be alert for an unusually virulent epidemic of 'malaria' on the K2 Front.

How many 'enemy' died from the two canisters of Type VX? It is impossible for the public to find out. Two canisters were dropped. Dr. Gordon Kilgour, the chairman of the Chemistry Department at Portland State University, has said that one canister of Type VX gas is enough to kill two and a half million if properly dispersed. It could then be assumed that everything that walked, flew, crawled or lay within the immediate vicinity of the target area was dead several thousand times over within fifteen minutes after the explosive charges shattered the steel casings and a light mist began to fall across the verdant and bomb-scarred landscape of northeastern Cambodia.

200 Million Addicts in a Disneyland of Death

To any decent human being, one might suppose that this previously unreported account of the use of nerve gas to kill Orientals half a world away is as shocking as it is repulsive and outrageous. But in 1972 it is a fact that this nation has, is and will continue to deliver as its major gifts to the world and history an assemblage of weapons, appropriations, political attitudes and nihilistic assumptions about the cheapness of human life that grows increasingly grotesque and deadly.

Regardless of the desires of its citizens, and in most cases in spite of them, the United States today is a Disneyland of Death addicted to immense injections of federal funds into the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC). This addiction to the economy of mass slaughter, like any other kind of addiction, requires constant and ever-increasing amounts of the narcotic (in this case money and its attendant massive profits -- along with minimal jobs) to keep it from presumed recession and civic strife.

This article is from Earth magazine, April 1972, pages 84-89:

CBW: Death Comes on Little Cat Feet

by Gerard Van der Leun

Would the most powerful nation in the history of the world, the richest nation, a nation dedicated to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a nation with enough explosive power in its arsenals to fracture the earth to its core, deal heavily in an even nastier and more reprehensible area of massive slaughter? You bet your ass it would. Despite Presidential proclamations and a massive publicity campaign on the part of the Pentagon, the U.S. of A. today holds a commanding lead in Chemical and Biological Warfare. Not that the military is twiddling its thumbs in any other areas of "terminating humans with extreme prejudice." It merely keeps canisters of virulent disease up its sleeve 'just in case.'

The myth that the U.S. would never use CBW first is as full of holes as Pat Nixon's first cloth coat, or, if you prefer, as full of holes as her husband's 1969 announcement that we were reducing our deadly dabbling in microscopic death. Reports persist concerning several incidents during the Korean War of the use of insects to disseminate disease among the North Koreans and the Chinese. The U.S. has used tons of tear gas in Vietnam over the last five to ten years. It has also used crop-destroying agents, some of which have been shown to cause death in the weak and elderly as well as being able to create birth defects when pregnant women are exposed to them. The U.S. has, at least once, 'tested' 'Type VX' nerve gas on a contingent of North Vietnamese troops (see page 26). The nation also holds the dubious position, along with Australia and Portugal, of refusing to sign the only operative agreement prohibiting the use of CBW. The record gives the lie to the myth concerning our 'humane' interest in CBW.

Just what is CBW in the 1984 enclaves of our 1972 world? How would you like a brief tour of our CBW manufacturing, testing and storage facilities? You will need a "Q" security clearance, testimonials from prominent Senators and Congressmen, permission from the top brass in the Pentagon, an air-tight rubber suit, several decontamination chambers, a knowledge of chemistry and medicine and a cast-iron stomach. Is your suit sealed along with your lips and your imagination? Good. Let us go then, you and I.

Go where? You have a choice. You can go to the Rocky Mountain Arsenal just outside of Denver, Colorado, or perhaps you would prefer Pine Bluff, Arkansas. No? Then try the Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland, or Fort Detrick in the same state. Striking westward you could end up at Umitilla army base in Hermiston, Oregon after passing through Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah, through Fort McClellan, Alabama and a brief stopover in Newport, Indiana. All of the above named plants manufacture, test, and store all or portions of the following inventory of the major known weapons in the Chemical and Biological Arsenal of the United States of America:

ANTHRAX: A disease that would be likely to kill only twenty percent of any group that was exposed to it, provided that massive and adequate medical treatment was available. The symptoms that Anthrax produces are high fever, vomiting, hemorrhage, headaches and bloody diarrhea.

RABBIT FEVER: People usually get this disease from rodents by means of fly bites. Rabbit Fever causes the lymph nodes in the body to swell, with a resultant high fever. Sometimes these swollen lymph nodes transform themselves into ulcers. A bit more unpleasant than the common cold, but you can cure it with certain antibiotics if you happen to have them in your pocket.

BOTULISM A: A few people may recall that this virus killed a couple of folks when it cropped up in some cans of soup in the summer of 1971. Because the ingestion of this virus results in a paralysis of the eyes, throat, chest and the entire respiratory system, it is almost always fatal.

Q FEVER: Kinder than most of the biological weapons, this one won't kill you; it will merely waste you for a long time. The advantage of this bug is that it is highly infectious. You can spread it around very quickly and very easily. All you have to do is to breathe out near someone who is breathing in.

VENEZUELAN EQUINE ENCEPHALOMYELITIS: A deadly disease that inflames the brain and spinal cord. It can be carried and dispersed by migrating birds. If you think this bird idea is pure theory, be informed that the Pentagon has put a number of millions of dollars into finding out just how this could be done.

STAPHYLOCOCCUS ENTEROTOXIN: Another 'humane' germ. It will only make you vomit violently for a number of days. Unless you are weak, old or pregnant it won't kill you.

SHELLFISH POISON: This item won't kill you either. It will merely attack your nervous system and paralyze you. If you don't mind being a vegetable, you'll be all right.

BZ GAS: At times this chemical has been known to produce an extremely dead human being. Most of the time, however, it renders you either catatonic or homicidal, depending on what sort of person you are to begin with.

TYPE GB AND TYPE VX NERVE GAS: Agents that kill within ten minutes of contact with the skin or the interior of the lungs. There are a number of unsavory signs that the person affected is about to die, but, generally speaking, if the convulsions don't get you then the paralysis of the central nervous system will.

MUSTARD GAS: Used extensively by both sides in World War I, mustard gas causes blistering lesions on flesh. If you don't have a gas mask and breathe a mouthful of it, it will do the same thing to the insides of your lungs.

TYPE DM RIOT CONTROL AGENT: A gas that induces violent sneezing and vomiting. Not at all like the effect of a cannabis cigarette.

TYPE CS AND CN TEAR GAS: A number of Vietnamese have had the unwelcome experience of this gas in Vietnam. A number of students and third world people have had the same experience here at home. Here it is used to convince people that they would be more comfortable watching the whole 'demonstration' on television. In Vietnam, the Army proclaims that it is being used just as humanely. It uses CS and CN to drive Vietnamese 'enemy' and civilians alike out of the caves where they have taken shelter so that they can be humanely bombed by B-52s.

WHITE PHOSPHORUS ROCKET WARHEADS: Ostensibly, white phosphorus is only used in Vietnam as a means of tracing the path of bullets and marking targets. The Pentagon calls it 'smoke munitions.' The U.S. Army consistently maintains that phosphorus is not being used as an 'anti-personnel' weapon. Conversely, a large number of Vietnamese (most notably children) are turning up with the kind of burns, wounds, and scars that only white phosphorus can inflict.

These are only a few of the many strange and varied doomsday products you would be likely to run across in your tour of the government-maintained plants that manufacture them. The Pine Bluff Arsenal also has a stock of bullets smeared with Botulin A. There is only one practical use for such ammunition -- assassination. It wouldn't be necessary to score a direct hit on a victim; a flesh wound would be sufficient.

In 1969 President Nixon announced that the United States was renouncing the first-use of CBW, shutting down many of the factories that produce the weapons of CBW, and cutting back on the funds available for research and development in this grisly field of modern scientific endeavor. By 1972 the following things have actually been done:

President Nixon in his historic announcement restricting the use and development of CBW agents qualified his statement by adding that the U.S. would continue to research defenses against virulent diseases and gases. Separating defense and offense in CBW is like trying to remove the head of the mule from its neck and still have something that will pull your cart. Say that someone in the Pentagon gets the notion that Russia or China or Monaco is producing a new biological weapon, which we shall call "Hummingbird Venom." Naturally, we must have a defense against this deadly toxin, lest some warped maniac unleash millions of lethal hummingbirds along the Mexican border and shoo them into the U.S. But how does one go about finding a cure for Hummingbird Venom? You guessed it -- it is necessary to invent a venomous hummingbird! Hence, research for defense against CBW is identical to research for offense. Score one for Richard Nixon.

Although the President said that many CBW plants would be shut down, this has yet to happen. What is happening is that many of the plants that make toxins and bacilli are simply 'merging' with other agencies on the land they now occupy. Thus, the Army lets it be known that the Pine Bluff Biological Warfare Center in Arkansas will become the Food and Drug Administration's National Center for Toxicological Research. A month after the announcement, Pine Bluff purchases a million and a half dollars worth of automatic equipment designed to package chemicals. Then advertisements appear in newspapers asking for bids on five items like ammunition and explosives that will be needed at the Pine Bluff Center. This is not the sort of thing that the FDA usually deals in. The Edgewood Arsenal, in a similar leap into the jungles of government letterheads, no longer exists. It's simply a department of the Aberdeen, Maryland proving grounds. It didn't really go anywhere. It just changed its name. Score another few points for the President.

In 1969 the pith of the President's announcement on the reduction of factories and research was that there would also be a cut in funds available for CBW work. After all, if we are going to have less research and fewer factories, and fewer people employed in this business we can expect to spend less money, right? Examining the federal budget for 1971 we find that the Army requested $25.3 million for CBW weapons procurement. This year the Army is requesting $50.8 million -- more than double the amount of the year before. Final score in the CBW Pro-Bowl: President Nixon -- 1000, U.S. Citizens -- 0.

The only effect of Nixon's 'historic' CBW position paper has been to obfuscate the ongoing and ever-heightening investment of the United States into immense stockpiles of lethal germs and toxins. The public is being stroked into submissiveness on the issue of germ warfare by soothing statements from the White House and 'smokescreen' press releases from the Pentagon. The United States has not cut back its CBW programs. If anything it has doubled its efforts in this area. It has also doubled its efforts to hide this fact from the rest of the world.

There is a long history of CBW use in the United States that dates back to before the Revolutionary War. The first practitioner on record was Sir Jeffrey Amherst. Sir Jeffrey was the Commander-in-Chief of the British forces in America during the 1760's. In a move toward the final solution of the Indian problem in 1763, Sir Jeffrey sent several blankets and a handkerchief from a British smallpox hospital to some Indian chiefs as "gifts." Most of the tribes involved were soon dead from smallpox. The chiefs themselves didn't even have time to get off a thank-you note.

During the Civil War it was common practice for both sides to adorn the waterholes and ponds they passed when retreating, with the carcasses of pigs and horses. In a short time this sort of additive made the drinking water highly unpalatable.

Although the U.S. dabbled in retaliatory gas attacks against the Germans in World War I, it was the founding of Fort Detrick in Maryland during the 1940's that marked this nation's entry into the modern phase of CBW. Fort Detrick employed about 5,000 people by 1945 and employs many more today. It is undoubtedly the backbone of the American CBW weapons development system. Fort Detrick is reportedly about to go up for sale to someone who needs a well-located, up-to-date plant that is able to produce nerve gas, bubonic plague, and tear gas twenty-four hours a day. It has been in the 'preparatory' stages of going up for sale since around the time of the President's announcement. No buyers have been found and none are solicited. Until such a time as someone can be found to buy it, the Army will continue to use it.

In 1952, the United States was accused by China and North Korea of engaging in biological warfare in both of these countries. The International Scientific Commission was called in to investigate these charges. They reported there were several localized areas of large epidemics. American planes had been seen or heard flying over every area just prior to the outbreak of disease. The ISC also found unusually high concentrations of insects in these locales. These insects were also unusual in that they were either previously unknown in these areas, or appeared there in different seasons. The insects also appeared in the areas quite rapidly, rather than at the pace one might expect if they were just flying in or hatching. Some fleas were found to be carrying bubonic plague. Clams were found that were infected with cholera. The American government and its allies energetically denied all of the charges and the ISC's report was widely criticized as being based on circumstantial evidence and political bias. The affair was forgotten, but with the advent of new charges and reports concerning CBW use in Vietnam the case shows signs of being reopened.

Meanwhile, at Fort Detrick, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, the Dugway Proving Grounds, and a number of other sites, work in CBW went on much as it had. Every year saw more great leaps forward in the fields of silent slaughter. Recently, five thousand sheep were killed when a targeted drop of nerve gas in a testing area near Dugway went astray in an unpredicted wind. The sheep were forty-five miles from the target area and only the fact that it was raining and snowing during the night prevented the cloud of gas from reaching Interstate 40 a few miles further on. If the wind had been blowing in a slightly different direction the gas could have been carried into Salt Lake City, to the intense dismay of its residents.

Another area of the Dugway Proving Grounds is labeled "Permanently Biocontaminated." The agent of contamination here is the world-renowned Venezuelan equine encephalitis.

The problems with Dugway go back nearly twenty years. A veterinarian in Utah has stated that Anthrax outbreaks occurred often in the area around Dugway in the late 40's and early 50's. Accidents involving nerve gas and disease have occurred with some regularity at all other storage areas and proving grounds. If you have a lot of something that can go wrong in numerous ways, sooner or later something will go wrong.

What can be done about the ongoing research and manufacture of CBW weapons systems? There currently exists in the world an international agreement known as the Geneva Protocol. The Protocol was drafted in 1925. Representatives of the United States helped to draft the document. The agreement essentially outlaws the first use of chemical or biological warfare. To this day the United States has not ratified the agreement. Eighty member states of the United Nations have voted to ratify the Protocol. Three nations voted against the Protocol. They were Australia, Portugal and the United States. One of the reasons the United States refuses to ratify the Protocol is that the agreement outlaws the use of tear gas and defoliants along with the more lethal types of CBW. Since the U.S. is admitting to the use of both tear gas and defoliants in Indochina, it can't very well ratify something it is currently violating. Can it?

Lest it be thought that the United States government is doing nothing to limit CBW, let us look at the record. The U.S. is on the verge (in fact, they are eight months behind schedule) of destroying a lot of mustard gas that was left over from World War I, and can be presumed to have been obsolete as a CBW weapon for over fifty years. Next summer the U.S. is supposed to destroy a small part of its nerve gas inventory, a part that is housed in 'obsolete delivery vehicles.' This small portion of the total amount of nerve gas in our stockpiles comes to 21,107 cluster bombs with gas inside them. These 21,107 bombs contain two trillion lethal doses of nerve gas, or enough of this chemical to kill every man, woman and child on the face of the planet six hundred and sixty-six times. This is only the obsolete portion of the arsenal, mind you.

And, by the way, just how do you get rid of nerve gas once you have gone so far as to make it? You can't just climb into the bunker, pull out the corks, and pour the stuff down the drain into the sewer. How about putting it in big concrete blocks, hauling it by train across the country, stuffing it into ships and taking the ships out to a deep part of the sea and sinking them? Not a bad idea if you can get it across the country with no accidents, load it safely, sink it successfully, and then pray the ship and concrete never wear out at the bottom of the sea. The Germans did this during the First and Second World Wars. Some muddleheaded scientists have said that we are about to see some of these chemicals reappear in the form of dead fish, dead fishermen, and dead coastal cities. Partisans of the German and the American military have shouted cries of "Quack" and "Muddleheaded." Only time will tell, but it's not a nice surprise to have to wait for.

Okay, you don't sink it in the sea. Maybe you drill a big hole into the ground and pump it all in and then seal up the hole. This technique was tried at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. All kinds of gases, chemicals, and other nasty pollutants were pumped down one well deep into the bowels of the earth for months. Suddenly, Denver began to experience the first earthquakes in its history. By seismographic analysis, scientists in Colorado and California located the cause of the trouble in the very well down which waste products were pumped. The Army began by saying there was no connection. Nevertheless, it was soon noted that when there was no pumping there were no earthquakes. The Army then stopped the well entirely, since it would have been futile to try to show the public that they were mistaken. Scratch another disposal method.

The techniques now being used involve efforts to sterilize it, mix it with other chemicals to render it harmless, and bury the gas in eternal time capsules for our descendants to deal with.

What lies ahead in the fascinating realms of CBW? Almost anything you can imagine, if you care to imagine those kind of things. Very soon we will see the specter of gases against which there is no defense and which don't lose their potency over a period of time.

Dr. J.B. Neilands (Professor of Biochemistry, University of California, Berkeley) has said:

The future is important to consider. The science of biochemical genetics is at a stage where they can produce an organism that is uncontrollable. First you simply make an organism that is resistant to the common run of antibiotics. You could do this through exposure of the organism to the antibiotics and selection of those organisms that developed an immunity to them, or you could inject it with a genetic package that would confer immunity upon it. It's now possible to create organisms which defeat the immune reactions of the body. It is technically possible to create a germ that is highly contagious and incurable. And to do this is going to prove to be cheaper than any of the large weapons, even if it is more unpredictable.

http://www.namebase.org/nerve.html

Historic False Flag Terror in Germany

THE PHANTOM OF TERRORISM WHO HIDES BEHIND THE LABEL "RED ARMY FACTION"? Since more than twenty years the Federal Republic of Germany has graduously developed from a constitutionalstate to a security state. Fundamental rights of the accused and the defense have been massively restricted, people intimidated and harassed merely for having made use of their civil liberties, secret services and police have set up a system of surveillance and control barely limited by legal barriers. Undercover agents snoop on harmless citizens and carry out terrorist crimes with the consent of government. Innocent persons disappear behind prison bars for years. All these developments are publicly justified by the need to combat terrorism, and in particular, the "Red Army Faction "(RAF) initiated by the Baader-Meinhof group in the late 60ies. Yet, not one of the perpetrators numerous attacks and murders imputed to the "RAF" since 1981 has been identified, let be arrested or put to trial. The impressing arsenal of anti-terrorist laws, the legal, technical and financial rearmement of criminal investigation authorities, secret services and police has proven totally ineffective in tracking the terrorists, but they are posing a growing threat to constitutional democracy in the EC's most powerful member state. Who stands behind the mysterious crimes carried out under the mysterious label "RAF"? Is it really an ultra-leftist revolutionary group? In a recently published book the three German authors an TV-journalists Gerhard Wisnewski, Wolfgang Landgraeber and Ekkehard Sieker, make a clean sweep of the longstanding and systematical attempts by the German security apparatus to hold the spectre of the "RAF" alive. The authors are convincing when revealing the blatant inefficiency of official investigations, bizarre flaws of the vaste security structures set up for the protection of prominent victims and systematic deception of the public by government bodies and media trying to keep the "RAF"- phantom alive. The book becomes more speculative, when trying to find an answer to the crucial question of "cui bono?" (in whom's interest?). Yet, it is a must for any one trying to understand the effect of terrorism on Western states. Three "generations" of one and the same terrorist organisation? The book essentially focuses on the so called "third generation" of the "RAF". The authors makeout fundamental differences in the behaviour and the political background of this last generation as compared with its predecessors. While the "first generation", the so called Baader-Meinhof-group, was to some extent rooted in the radical German protest movement of the 60ies, already the "second generation" operating in the late 70ies and early 80ies rapidly became politically isolated. As for the "third generation", they are quite generally viewed as professional provocateurs by the German left as a whole. Indeed, the opposition movement in Germany has changed since the 60ies marked by a leftist culture of universalist and intellectual criticism of capitalism and US-imperialism and some readiness to sympathise with "revolutionary" violence. Since the beginning of the 80ies, the German left concentrated on basically non-violent "single-issue" movements such as those against the building of a new runway at the Francfurt airport, the stationing of Pershing II-missiles on German soil, nuclear power plants, the Gulf war, or the dismantling of Eastern German economy after the unification. All these movements were fairly non-ideological, aiming rather at wide support among average people than at proning insurrection.This was no longer a promising political recruiting field for the "revolutionary" violence of the "RAF". The authors note a further difference between the various generations of the "RAF". From its very beginning, the "first generation" (Baader-Meinhof) was thoroughly infiltrated by undercover agents, its members permanently observed, hunted and tracked. A massive wave of arrests launched just three weeks after the first bomb attack of the group put an end to its activity. The self-taught "guerilla-fighters" had no chance even against the comparatively modest legal and police apparatus of the 6oies and early 70ies. The same is true with regard to the "second generation", with one troubling difference however. Two of its leading figures, Christian Klar and Adelheid Schultz, twice miraculously escaped arrest (1977, 1978) in spite of uninterrupted close observation by intelligence. A frustrated Horst Herold, then head of the BKA (Federal office of criminal investigation) later made the following cryptical but noteworthy comment: "In this case one has allowed - and this with the participation of Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and Minister Baum -to withhold from the police the terrorists Klar and Schulz, whom the Verfassungsschutz [the FRG's internal secret service] of Hamburg had clearly tracked (...)After that, the secret service and the politicians make business with such things... all this is just intolerable." Christian Klar was finally arrested in 1982. The event marked the end of the "second generation". Most of the remaining members of the group gave up terrorist activities and found sanctuary in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR), where they returned to normal civilian life until their arrest in 1990, after the downfall of the Honecker-regime. Only a small group of seven alleged members of the "second generation" seemed to have literally vanished from the ground. None of them was ever seen or heard of again. No "Stasi-RAF connection" In a particular chapter, the authors convincingly refute allegations widely spread by Western media of a "RAF-Stasi (GDR-secret service) connection" responsible for the terrorist attacks of the "third generation". They even assert that the GDR's decisionto grant sanctuary to defecting "RAF"-Guerillas was secretly negociated between high-ranking politicians of the West German government and the central committee of the GDR's ruling communist party. At that time, the authors say, Chancellor Helmut Schmidt was eager to get rid of the politically sensitive issue of terrorism. When asked about such a secret agreement, the BKA sent the following statement to the authors: "There are no findings in hand of the BKA defeating arrangements between FRG and GDR politicians pertaining to "RAF" defectors in the GDR." The authors also bring evidence that the BKA knew that RAF-defectors were living in the GDR as early as 1985 and quote a pro memoria of the Interior Ministry of the FRG from 1991, according to which "there is no sufficient evidence for a collaboration between the [GDR] Ministry for State Security and the"RAF" ". All this did not prevent German mass media from further cultivating the legend of the "RAF-killers" trained and controled by the "diabolic" Stasi. "We bomb, hence we exist!": the faceless professionals of the "third generation" 1985 marked the beginning of a new macabre wave of particularly spectacular and cold-blooded murders and bomb attacks against some of the most high ranking and best protected personalities of the country, among whom Ernst Zimmermann, head of the German armement corporation MTU (1985), Karl Heinz Beckurts (member of the board of Siemens (1986), Alfred Herrhausen, speaker of the board of Deutsche Bank (1989) and Detlev Karsten Rohwedder, chief of the "Treuhand-Anstalt", the public trust-company in charge of privatisation, respectively liquidation of the former East German public sector(1991). The common characteristic of all these murders: They are carried out by professionals who often appear to have detailed insider knowledge not only of the localities and the victims' habits, but also of the loopholes in the security disposals. As the authors' thorough investigations and detailed reconstructions, in particular of the Herrhausen and Rohwedder cases, show, they prepare their deeds with uncanny sureness, sometimes during months, and right under the nose of some of Europe's best equipped and trained anti-terrorist forces (the German MEK and SEK policeunits). They almost demonstratively leave traces on the places of their crimes - letters of confession with the "RAF"'s insignia, star and mp,a fieldglass, neatly assembled cartridge cases, detonators -, but thesetraces neither ever lead to a perpetrator, nor do they establish the authenticity of the messages of confession apparently linking the "RAF" to the crimes. None of the "vanished" members of the "second generation" can be linked to the crimes. While Andreas Baader and his friends always tried to ideologically justify their deeds and left no doubt about the authenticity of their letters of confession, e.g. by applying finger print stamps, the alleged "third generation" is a pure phantom, a terror squad without members. As opposed to the preceding RAF-generations there are no traces of any logistical structures and preparations necessary for carrying out attacks of such a scale: no appartments serving as hiding places, no weapon or ammunition stocks, no bank robberies...nothing. The total failure of Germany's internal security apparatus In 1989 the then chief of the BKA, Kurt Rebmann dryly admits that there is no factual evidence linking the "RAF" to any of the murders occurred since 1985. Nonetheless, the existence of a leftist terrorgroup by the name of "RAF" springing from the original Baader-Meinhof group is never questioned. The legend of the leftist killers of the "third generation" is, in contary, systematically cultivated by government agencies and the press. Based on a troubling number of well researched cases the authors claim that the BKA and other judicial and governmental bodies do not hesitate to use means ranging from interference in legal procedures, biased expertises to outright blackmailing of witnesses and fake "terror attacks" carried out by... the state's anti-terrorist units in cooperation with the internal secret service - all this in order to "prove" the existence of the "third generation" of left wing terrorists. The "letters of confession" The BKA has spent a lot of time and money in deceiving the public on the alleged authenticity of letters of confession and other messages regarding the murders. But based on the findings of some of Germany's most respected experts of crime technology, graphology and linguistics, the authors come to the conclusion, that the BKA's assertions regarding the authenticity of the texts concerned are unscientifical and biased. In a rare access of honesty the BKA itself admitted that the thermoprinter used for the letter of self-accusation in the Herrhausen case lacks any particular characteristics permitting its identification. Regularly confronted with such lack of usefull evidence, a regrettable consequence of modern printing technology, the BKA developed "TEXTOR", a computerised text matching program. By screen-matching all existing texts imputed to the RAF it was hoped to detect the "individual" stile (orthographic, grammatical, linguistic particularities) of a whole group. Writings of a number of individuals suspected to be sympathisers of the RAF were screened for ressemblances with the computerised "RAF-stile". One suspect, Andreas S. was held on remand for two and a half years, because of his habit to write the German abbreviation z.B. [in English: i.e.] with small letters, a current mistake in alleged RAF texts. The TEXTOR-expert's credibility only broke down, when critical colleagues discovered the criminal z.b.in one of his own writings. The court later found that many of the alleged letters of confession had simply been copied and compounded from old pressarticles and leaflets from various sources. This was, for the time being, the end of TEXTOR and the legend of an anonymous terror squad's "personal handwriting". Since then, only one thing is beyond doubt: anybody could easily have fabricated the written confessions and "RAF" insignia. The "repenter" Siegfried Nonne The case of Siegfried Nonne is one of the spectacular attempts of German state bodies to forge evidence in view of their ever more obvious lack of success in tracking the terrorists. In January 1992 the BKA organised a press conference with a scoop: A repenter turned statewitness had admitted that he had prepared the murder of Alfred Herrhausen together with two of the vanished members of the "RAF"'s second generation.A link between the crimes of the 80ies and known members of the "RAF" finally seemed established. The "repenter", Siegfried Nonne, was a 35 year old drug addict with a long psychiatrical record and the Verfassungsschutz (VS) later admitted that he had been an under cover agent in the early 80ies. But this did not prevent the media from warming up the old "RAF" legend and once again speculating on Stasi involvment. But in June 1992, Nonne, appearing in a TV-program, testified to the authors, that since November 1990 he had been bribed and blackmailed with threats to his life into his "confession" by high officials of the VS (the stunning story is told in detail in a long chapter of the book). The "Celle hole" In 1978 a bomb explosion tore a hole in the in the prison of Celle, a town in Nieder-Sachsen. The attack was immediately presented as a terrorist attack aiming at the liberation of "RAF"-convicts detained in the prison. As a result, the prisoners rights were massively restricted and the bombing served as a justification for more pro-active policing. The truth about the bombing came to light eight years later, in 1986. It had been planned and carried out by the VS in cooperation with GSG-9, a German anti-terrorist unit created with the support of the British SAS. None of the high officials involved was ever sanctioned. In contrary: The then chief of the VS of Nieder-Sachsen was named vice-president of the federal VS and Gerhard Boeden, then vice-president of the BKA, is now head of the federal VS. As Jürgen Trittin, now a minister in the Land of Niedersachsen remarked, one "does not any longer know which attacks must be answered for by the state and which by the terrorists." The book contains further troubling evidence for state involvment in terrorist crimes, as for instance the case of a VS-undercover agent, Peter Schmücker, mysteriously murdered in a Berlin park in 1974. The case was finally dropped in 1990, after years of prison on remand for the official suspects, when the murder weapon was found in a cellar of the Berlin VS. Cui bono? Authorities periodically come out with the assertion that "RAF"-detainees command the terror squads from inside their high security prison cells. This is a good pretext for further restricting the rights of the detainees and their lawyers, each time a new attack has occurs, and for graduously extending police observation and infiltration to ever larger groups of persons suspected to form the"social environment" of the terrorists, but even the president of the German association of penitentiary directors insists that there is not the slightest evidence for any functioning command structure among the "RAF" detainees. The political effect of the "third generation's" attacks is clear: The head of Deutsche Bank,Herrhausen, is murdered at a time of growing criticism of the role of the banking world in the impoverishment of developing countries, a machine gun attack against the American embassy in Bonn is carried out at the height of non-violent mass protests in Germany against the USA's role in the Gulfwar, Mr. Rohwedder, the chief of the "Treuhand" is shot dead only weeks before a planned mass rally of union members in Berlin against the brutal dismantling of East German economy by the "Treuhand". In all cases the effect is the same: The "acts of solidarity" of the "RAF" with popular mass movements deprives the latter in of their credibility and leads to the criminalisation of legitimate poitical opposition. In several chapters the authors investigate the backgrounds and roles of some of the prominent victims. Alfred Herrhausen, for instance, is presented as the man who attempted to make the Deutsche Bank a "global player" in direct rivalry with mostly American financial institutes and as a strong advocate of cancelling the debts of Third World countries. Both policies are resented as a threat by US bankers. As for Rohwedder, the chief of the "Treuhand", he was facing growing criticism from neo-liberal financial circles in and outside Germany for placing social considerations before ever to hasty privatisations leading to mass unemployment. After Herrhausen's death, Deutsche Bank gives up its ambitions as a "global player", the new chief of the "Treuhand" proceeds with the ruthless liquidation of East German enterprises. In other words, the acts of the "third generation" inflict heavy dammage to precisely the aims they pretend to serve: Improved conditions for the "RAF"-detainees, the preservation of civil liberties, peace in the Gulf region, Third World solidarity, employment in East Germany... But then, if the terror attacks are not in the interest of popular opposition, in whom do they serve? Why were economical and politic leaders of Germany's economy killed and by whom? "RAF" in Germany, Brigaterosse in Italy, "17 November" in Greece: A secret service plot? In spite of years of terrorist hunt carried out by an ever more sophisticated security apparatus, nothing is known about the true authors of the attacks of the last decade and, as the magazine of the Germany's largest workers union, IG Metall, puts it: "Nobody has publicly raised the question, if really all traces are being investigated or perhaps only the obviously wrong ones, if we are really dealing with a totally unknown "RAF"-generation or perhaps rather with a quite known one, made up of international intelligence circles, if actually Zimmermann, Beckurts, Herrhausen and Rohwedder did not have ennemies outside the left, for instance inside the system of big money at home and abroad." To investigate these "other traces" is precisely what the authors undertake in large parts of their book. Their findings are contained in interesting chapters on the policies and methods of secret services as the CIA, stunning cases of collusion between "anti-terror" units, secret services on the one hand, and the "RAF's" brother groups, the Red Brigades in Italy and the "movement of the 17thNovember" in Greece, counter-insurgency operations and secret combat structures as the NATO's "Gladio". All this is based on extensive and meticulous investigation. Yet, the book can but fall short from producing evidence for what appears to be a strong suspicion of the authors, that the murders of Zimmermann, Rohwedder and Herrhausen, just as those of John F. Kennedy, Enrico Mattei and Olof Palme were planned and carried out with strong involvment of Western secret service networks. The rare reviews of the book in the German press have derisively focused on this "plot theory"of the authors, thus escaping the more thornful task of commenting the authors' really crucial and well-established findings regarding the notorious inefficiency and sometimes criminal behaviour of the German security apparatus and their bitter remarks on the setting up of a control state. "Yet, the authors bitterly note, in the presence of medecine which obviously does not have any effect, the only thing that comes in their [politicians and security experts] minds is to prescribe more of it." "The intimidation of the population with "criminal investigations", the maintenance of a gigantic security and legal apparatus and, finally, the unrestricted spying on critical citizens, with an unidientified terror squad named "RAF" a sa pretext, are proceedings the citizens of this country should never accept." Nicholas Busch Das RAF-Phantom - Wozu Politik und Wirtschaft Terroristen brauchen, by Gerhard Wisnewski, Wolfgang Landgraeber, Ekkehard Sieker, December 1992, publisher: Knaur, Munich (ISBN3-426-80010-1), 464 p., in German.

KSM confession (Full text, verbatim transcript)

Verbatim Transcript of Open Session Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing for Khalid Sheikh Muhammad

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/terrorism_hearings/transcript_mohammed.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

Verbatim Transcript of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing for ISN 10024

OPENING

REPORTER: On the record

RECORDER: All rise.

PRESIDENT: Remain seated and come to order. Go ahead, Recorder.

RECORDER: This Tribunal is being conducted at 1328 March 10, 2007 on board US. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The following personnel are present:
Captain [REDACTED], United States Navy, President
Lieutenant Colonel [REDACTED], United States Air Force, Member
Lieutenant Colonel [REDACTED]. United States Marine Corps, Member
Lieutenant Colonel [REDACTED], United States Air Force, Personal Representative Language Analysis [REDACTED]
Gunnery Sergeant [REDACTED], United States Marine Corps, Reporter
Lieutenant Colonel [REDACTED], United States Army, Recorder
Captain [REDACTED] is the Judge Advocate member of the Tribunal.

OATH SESSION I

RECORDER: All Rise.

PRESIDENT: The Recorder will be sworn. Do you, Lieutenant Colonel [REDACTED] solemnly swear that you will faithfully perform the duties as Recorder assigned in this Tribunal so help you God?

RECORDER: I do.

PRESIDENT: The Reporter will now be sworn. The Recorder will administer the oath.

RECORDER: Do you Gunnery Sergeant [DELETED] swear or affirm that you will faithfully discharge your duties as Reporter assigned in this Tribunal so help you God?

REPORTER: I do.

PRESIDENT: The Translator will be sworn.

RECORDER: Do you swear or affirm that you will faithfully perform the duties of Translator in the case now in hearing so help you God?

TRANSLATOR: I do.

PRESIDENT: We will take a brief recess now in order in to bring Detainee into the room. Recorder note the date and time.

RECORDER: The time is 1:30pm hours on 10 March 2007. This Tribunal is in now in recess. [The Tribunal recessed at 1330, 10 March 2007. The members withdrew from the hearing room.]

CONVENING AUTHORITY

RECORDER: All Rise. [The Tribunal reconvened and the members entered the room at 1334, 10 March 2007.]

PRESIDENT: This hearing will come to order. Please be seated.

PRESIDENT: Before we begin, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, I understand you speak and understand English. Is that correct?

DETAINEE: [Detainee nods his head in affirmative].

PRESIDENT: Alright. Are you comfortable in continuing in English or would you like everything translated in Arabic?

DETAINEE: Everything in English but if I have a problem the linguist will help me.

PRESIDENT: We will proceed in English. If you indicate to me that you would like something translated we will go ahead and do that. Alright?

PRESIDENT: This Tribunal is convened by order of the Director, Combatant Status Review Tribunals under the provisions of his Order of 22 February 2007.

PRESIDENT: This Tribunal will determine whether Khalid Sheikh Muhammad meets the criteria to be designated as an enemy combatant against the United States or its coalition partners or otherwise meets the criteria to be designated as an enemy combatant.

OATH SESSION 2

PRESIDENT: The members of this Tribunal shall now be sworn. All rise.

RECORDER: Do you swear or affirm that you will faithfully perform your duties as a member of this Tribunal; that you will impartially examine and inquire into the matter now before you according to your conscience, and the laws and regulations provided; that you will make such findings of fact and conclusions as are supported by the evidence presented; that in determining those facts, you will use your professional knowledge, best judgment, and common sense; and that you will make such findings as are appropriate according to the best of your understanding of the rules, regulations, and laws governing this proceeding, and guided by your concept of justice so help you God?

TRIBUNAL: I do.

PRESIDENT: The Recorder will now administer the oath to the Personal Representative.

RECORDER: Do you swear or affirm that you will faithfully perform the duties of Personal Representative in this Tribunal so help you God?

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: I do.

PRESIDENT: Please be seated.

PRESIDENT: The Recorder, Reporter, and Translator have previously been sworn.

EXPLANATION OF PROCEEDINGS

PRESIDENT: Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, you are hereby advised that the following applies during this hearing:

PRESIDENT: You may be present at all open sessions of the Tribunal. However, if you become disorderly, you will be removed from the hearing, and the Tribunal will continue to hear evidence in your absence.

PRESIDENT: You may not be compelled to testify at this Tribunal. However, you may testify if you wish to do so. Your testimony can be under oath or unsworn. You may have the assistance of a Personal Representative at the hearing. Your assigned Personal Representative is present.

PRESIDENT: You may present evidence to this Tribunal, including the testimony of witnesses who are reasonably available and whose testimony is relevant to this hearing. You may question witnesses testifying at the Tribunal.

PRESIDENT: You may examine documents or statements offered into evidence other than classified information. However, certain documents may be partially masked for security reasons.

PRESIDENT: Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, do you understand this process?

DETAINEE: Yes. If I have question can I ask you?

PRESIDENT: Yes, you may.

DETAINEE: About the testimony which I ask about the witnesses.

PRESIDENT: Yes, I’m going to address the witnesses shortly. So, if you will hear with us I will take that up in a few moments.

DETAINEE: Okay.

PRESIDENT: Do you have any questions concerning the Tribunal process?

DETAINEE: Okay by me,

PRESENTATION OF UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

PRESIDENT: Personal Representative, please provide the Tribunal with the Detainee Election Form.

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: I am handing the Tribunal the Detainee Election Form, which was previously marked as Exhibit D-a.

PRESIDENT: Alright, the Tribunal has received Exhibit D-a that indicates the Detainee wants to participate in the Tribunal and wants the assistance of the Personal Representative.

RECORDER PRESENTS UNCLASSIFIED

PRESIDENT: Recorder, please provide the Tribunal with the unclassified evidence.

RECORDER: I am handing the Tribunal what has previously been marked as Exhibit R-1, the unclassified summary of the evidence that relates to this Detainee’s status as an enemy combatant. A translated copy of this exhibit was provided to the Personal Representative in advance of this hearing for presentation to the Detainee. In addition, I am handing to the Tribunal the following unclassified exhibits, marked as Exhibit R-2. Copies of these Exhibits have previously been provided to the Personal Representative. [Documents presented to Tribunal]

PRESIDENT: Recorder, please read the unclassified summary of evidence for the record. But before you proceed, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, let me remind you that you must not comment on this evidence at this time. You will be provided with an opportunity shortly to provide any comments that you would like. Recorder, please proceed.

RECORDER: The following facts support the determination that the Detainee is an enemy combatant:

Paragraph a. On the morning of 11 September 2001, four airliners traveling over the United States were hijacked. The flights hijacked were: American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77, and United Airlines Flight 93. At approximately 8:46 a.m., American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, resulting in the collapse of the tower at approximately 10:25 a.m. At approximately 9:05 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, resulting in the collapse of the tower at approximately 9:55 a.m. At approximately 9:37 a.m., American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the southwest side of the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. At approximately 10:03 am., United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Stoney Creek Township, Pennsylvania. These crashes and subsequent damage to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon resulted in the deaths of 2,972 persons in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

Paragraph b. The Detainee served as the head of the al Qaida military committee and was Usama bin Laden’s principal al Qaida operative who directed the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States.

Paragraph c. In an interview with an al Jazeera reporter in June 2002, the Detainee stated he was the head of the al Qaida military committee.

Paragraph d. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the Detainee contained information about the four airplanes hijacked on 11 September 2001 including code names, airline company, flight number, target, pilot name and background information, and names of the hijackers.

Paragraph e. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the Detainee contained photographs of 19 individuals identified as the 11 September 2001 hijackers.

Paragraph f. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the Detainee contained a document that listed the pilot license fees for Mohammad Atta and biographies for some of the 11 September 2001 hijackers.

Paragraph g. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the Detainee contained images of passports and an image of Mohammad Atta.

Paragraph h. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the Detainee contained transcripts of chat sessions belonging to at least one of the 11 September 2001 hijackers.

Paragraph i. The Detainee directed an individual to travel to the United States to case targets for a second wave of attacks.

Paragraph j. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the Detainee contained three letters from Usama bin Laden.

Paragraph k. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the Detainee contained spreadsheets that describe money assistance to families of known al Qaida members.

Paragraph I. The Detainee’s name was on a list in a computer seized in connection with a threat to United States airlines, United States embassies and the Pope.

Paragraph m. The Detainee wrote the Bojinka plot, the airline bomb plot which was later found on his nephew Ramzi Yousef’s computer.

Paragraph n. The Bojinka plot is also known as the Manila air investigation.

Paragraph o. The Manila air investigation uncovered the Detainee conspired with others to plant explosive devices aboard American jetliners while those aircraft were scheduled to be airborne and loaded with passengers on their way to the United States.

Paragraph p. The Detainee was in charge of and funded an attack against United States military vessels heading to the port of Djibouti.

Paragraph q. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the Detainee contained a letter to the United Arab Emirates threatening attack if their government continued to help the United States.

Paragraph r. During the capture of the Detainee, information used exclusively by al Qaida operational managers to communicate with operatives was found.

Paragraph s. The Detainee received funds from Kuwaiti~based Islamic extremist groups and delivered the funds to al Qaida members.

Paragraph t. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the Detainee contained a document that summarized operational procedures and training requirements of an al Qaida cell.

Paragraph u. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the Detainee contained a list of killed and wounded al Qaida martyrs.

And lastly, Paragraph v. Passport photographs of al Qaida operatives were seized during the capture of the Detainee.

RECORDER: Sir, this concludes the summary of unclassified evidence.

PRESIDENT: Very well.

PRESIDENT: Personal Representative, does the Detainee have any evidence to present to this Tribunal?

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: Yes, sir. I am handing to the Tribunal the following unclassified exhibits marked as Exhibits D-b through D-d. Copies of these exhibits have been previously provided to the Recorder. [Documents presented to Tribunal]

PRESIDENT: Exhibit D-b appears to be a statement that the Detainee has provided.

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: Yes, Sir.

PRESIDENT: Alright. And Exhibit D-c contains hand written notes that appear to be Arabic and English as well as the typed version of that. Is that correct?

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: Yes, Sir.

PRESIDENT: Alright. And D-d is a written statement regarding alleged abuse or treatment that the Detainee received,

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: Yes, Sir.

PRESIDENT: Airight. We will go into those shortly.

PRESIDENT: Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, you may now make an oral statement to the Tribunal. and you have the assistance of your Personal Representative in doing so. Do you wish to make an oral statement to this Tribunal?

DETAINEE: He will start, the Personal Representative; PR will read then later I will comment.

PRESIDENT: Very well, you may proceed.

RECORDER: Sir, would you hold one moment?

PRESIDENT: Yes.

RECORDER: Ah, before the Detainee makes a statement, ah, I’d like to ah.

PRESIDENT: Question of the oath?

RECORDER: Ah, no sir.

RECORDER: Concerning classified evidence.

PRESIDENT: Very well.

PRESIDENT: Do you have any further evidence to present at this time, Recorder?

RECORDER: Mr. President, I have no further unclassified evidence for the Tribunal but I respectfully request a closed Tribunal session at an appropriate time to present classified evidence relevant to this Detainee’s status as an enemy combatant.

PRESIDENT: Very well, your request for a closed session is granted and will he taken up in due course.

PRESIDENT: You may proceed, PR.

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: The Detainee responds to the unclassified summary of evidence with the following key points.

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: “Some paragraphs under paragraph number 3, lead sentence are not related to the context or meaning of the aforementioned lead sentence. For example, paragraph 3-a is only information from news or a historical account of events on 11 September 2001, and note with no specific linkage being made in this paragraph to me or the definition of Enemy Combatant. As another example, sub-paragraph 3-n makes no linkage tome or to the definition of Enemy Combatant.”

DETAINEE: Are they following along?

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: Ah, they they have that in front of them for reference.

PRESIDENT: Yes.

DETAINEE: Okay.

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: Second main point; “There are two false statements in the Summary of Evidence. Sub-paragraph 3-c is false. I never stated to the Al Jazeera reporter that I was the head of the al Qaida military committee. Also, sub-paragraph 3-s is false. I did not receive any funds from Kuwait.”

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: Point number 3. “There is an unfair ‘stacking of evidence’ in the way the Summary of Evidence is structured. In other words, there are several sub-paragraphs under parent-paragraph 3 which should be combined into one subparagraph to avoid creating the false perception that there are more allegations or statements against me specifically than there actually are. For example, sub-paragraphs 3-m through 3-o, which pertain to the Bojinka plot should be combined into one paragraph, as should paragraphs 3-a through 3-h, which pertain to 9/l1.”

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: Lastly, my name is misspelled in the Summary of Evidence. It should be S-ha-i-k-h or S-h-e-i-k-h, but not S-h-a-y-k-h, as it is in the subject line.

PRESIDENT: Would you like to add anything to that, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad?

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: Final statement.

DETAINEE: No, I just want to ask about witnesses,

PRESIDENT: Okay, ah, let’s finish with these then I will get to the witnesses.

DETAINEE: Okay.

PRESIDENT: Try to keep it in order.

PRESIDENT: You want to continue, PR? Do you have have another statement?

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: That concludes this Detainee’s response to the, ah, unclassified summary of evidence, sir.

PRESIDENT: Oh.

CALLING OF WITNESSES

PRESIDENT: We will now allow for the calling of witnesses. All witnesses called before this Tribunal maybe questioned by the Detainee if present, the Personal Representative, the Recorder, and the Tribunal Members.

PRESIDENT: Does the Recorder have any witnesses to present?

RECORDER: No, sir.

PRESIDENT: Airight.

PRESIDENT: From the Detainee Election Form and I was informed earlier that the Detainee requested the presence of two witnesses to testify here today. Ramzi bin al-Shihh and Mustafa Hawsawi, The Detainee believes the witnesses can provide testimony related to the Detainee’s actions specified in the unclassified summary of the evidence.

PRESIDENT: I have had the opportunity to review the request for witnesses and I have made some findings and I’m going to place them on the record now and when I conclude that, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, you may respond to that if you’d like.

PRESIDENT: First the request for Ramzi bin al-Shib, the proffer of the testimony from the Detainee was that Ramzi is alleged to have been present during the al Jazeera interview in June 2002 during which it is said the Detainee claimed to be head of al Qaida Military Committee. The Detainee claims he never stated that, to be the head of the Military Committee, during the interview and states that Ramzi, if called, can confirm this.

PRESIDENT: This witness is not relevant in the President’s view for the following reasons: in the totality of the circumstances and given the nature and quality of the other unclassified evidence, the Detainee’s alleged statements as reported in al Jazeera are of limited value and negligible relevancy to the issue of combatant status. As such, any corroboration or contradiction by the proffered witness is not relevant. The creditability determinations with regard to R-2, which is the al Jazeera article, can be made by the Tribunal without the proffered testimony. As such, the Detainee’s request for the production of that witness is denied.

PRESIDENT: As to the request for Mustafa Hawsawi, ah, it is proffered that Hawsawi, if called, could testify that the computer/hard drive referenced in the unclassified summary was not this Detainee’s property and that the place of the Detainee’s capture was not the house of the Detainee. In the President’s view this testimony is not relevant to the issues regarding the Detainee’s capture or his combatant status for the following reasons,

PRESIDENT: Whether the Detainee had actual legal title or ownership of the computer/hard drive or the house where the capture took place is irrelevant to the determination of the Detainee’s status as an enemy combatant. Based on the proffer, if true, Hawsawi’s testimony will not provide relevant information, The issue of ownership, while of some interest, is not relevant to status. What is relevant is possession, usage, connection and presence. Hawsawi’s testimony will not speak to any relevant information in regard to such points. As such, the request for the production of that witness is denied.

PRESIDENT: If you would like to respond to that, I’ll hear you.

DETAINEE: Most of these facts which he written are related to this hard drive. And more than eleven of these facts are related to this computer, Other things are which is very old even nobody can bring any witnesses for that as you written here if it will be of a value for you for the witness near by you will do it. This computer is not for me. Is for Hawsawi himself So I’m saying I need Hawsawi because me and him we both been arrested day. Same way. So this computer is from him long time. And also the problem we are not in court and we are not judge and lie is not my lawyer but the procedure has been written reported and the way has mostly as certain charged against me; tell him, [Arabic Phrase].

TRANSLATOR: [Translating] They are only accusations.

DETAINEE: So accusations. And the accusations, they are as you put for yourself a definition for enemy combatant there are also many definitions for that accusation of fact or charges that has been written for any ab. [Arabic Phrase]

TRANSLATOR: [Translating] Person is accused.

DETAINEE: So, if I been accused then if you want to put facts against me also the definition for these facts. If you now read number N now what is written the Bojinka plot. Is known many lead investigation it is not related to anything facts to be against me. So when I said computer hard drive/ hard disk, same thing. All these point only one witness he can say yes or not cause he is this computer is under his possession him computer. And also specifically if he said Mohammad Atta picture been this hard drive. I don’t think this should accepted. There are many 100 thousand Americans who have a lot of picture on their computer. You cannot say i find Muhammad Atta on your computer then you use this fact against you. Or you find any files in your computer to be what about it’s mine, it’s not my computer. If this witness, he will state that this known and here that has been ninety percent of what is written is wrong. And for Ramzi, for reporter in Jazeera, he claimed that I state this one and you know the media man. How they are fashionable. What they mean in their own way in a whole different way. They just wrote it so he say I state. But I never stated and I don’t have any witnesses and witness are available here at Guantanamo, He is Detainee. He was with me. Which he been mostly in all my interview with him. Me and them, there was three person, me and Ramzi and this reporter. So if you not believe me, not believe him, believe my witness Ramzi. Then he’s what he state the reporter most is false. I not denying that I’m not an enemy combatant about this war but I’m denying the report. It not being written in the proper way. Which is really facts and mostly just being gathered many information. General information that form in way of doing, to use in facts against me.

PRESIDENT: I have heard and understood your argument. In order for me to make my determinations regarding the production of witnesses I first have to believe that they are relevant for the reasons that I have stated. For the reasons I have stated, I do not believe they are relevant. Whether or not they may be available here on Guantanamo, is a second decision to be made, but only if I decide they are relevant. I have heard your arguments. I noted them. However, my ruling stands.

PRESIDENT: The Recorder has no witnesses, is that my understanding?

RECORDER: No, sir.

PRESIDENT: And there are no other approved witnesses to taken up. Ah, we will take a brief moment to review the unclassified evidence that we received so far and then we will pick back up in the proceeding.

MEMBER: If I might ask a question real quick of the PR. This is the entire translation of the hand written notes?

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: Yeah. The hand written notes are the Detainee is on yellow.

MEMBER: Yes.

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: and, then the next set of notes, hand written notes, are the Linguist’s translation and then the final hard copy printed that’s, ah, that...

MEMBER: Type written.

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: Typed from Linguist’s notes.

MEMBER: Type from Linguist’s translations. Okay.

PRESIDENT: Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, I did not offer you an oath early because I was informed by the Personal Representative that you would be making some statement later on in these proceedings relevant to the truthfulness of your comments. So, if you would like to take an oath I would administer one to you but I did understand that you going to make a statement.

DETAINEE: In the final statement, I will explain why then.

PRESIDENT: Alright. Thank you. [Tribunal pauses to review D-a thru D-d]

MEMBER: Seen those.

TRANSLATOR: Sir.

PRESIDENT: Yes.

TRANSLATOR: He wanted me to translate a Koranic verse on the spot,

PRESIDENT: I will permit it.

TRANSLATOR: Thank you.

TRANSLATOR: Can I ask him for clarification?

PRESIDENT: Yes.

PRESIDENT: Do you need a few more moments, Translator?

TRANSLATOR: Yes, sir, about thirty seconds.

PRESIDENT: Go ahead and take your time.

TRANSLATOR: Would you me to read the English translation after he read Arabic verse or would like him to read it.

PRESIDENT: You want to save that for later?

TRANSLATOR: [Nods head]

PRESIDENT: Alright.

PRESIDENT: Let me take up a few things that have come up as based on my review of these documents that have been provided to us so far. D-d, appears to be a written statement regarding certain treatment that you claim to have received at the hands of agents of the United Stated government as you indicated from the time of your capture in 2003 up until before coming here to Guantanamo in September 2006.

PRESIDENT: Is that correct?

DETAINEE: Yes.

PRESIDENT: Alright.

PRESIDENT: Now, I haven’t seen any statements in the evidence we receive so far that claim to come from you other than acknowledging whether you were or not the head of the Military Committee. Were any statements that you made as the result of any of the treatment that you received during that time frame from 2003 to 2006? Did you make those statements because of the treatment you receive from these people?

DETAINEE: Statement for whom?

PRESIDENT: To any of these interrogators.

DETAINEE: CIA peoples. Yes. At the beginning when they transferred me [REDACTED].

PRESIDENT: What I’m trying to get at is any statement that you made was it because of this treatment, to use your word, you claim torture. Do you make any statements because of that?

TRANSLATOR: Sir, for clarification.

PRESIDENT: Can you translate it?

TRANSLATOR: I will translate in Arabic.

PRESIDENT: Yes.

TRANSLATOR: [Translating above]

DETAINEE: I ah cannot remember now [REDACTED] I’m senior man. Many people they know me which I don’t them, I ask him even if he knew George Bush. He said, yes I do. He don’t know you that not means its false. [REDACTED]. I said yes or not. This I said.

PRESIDENT: Alright, I understand.

PRESIDENT: Is there anything you would like to correct, amend, modify or explain to us from what you said back then?

DETAINEE: I want to just it is not related enemy combatant but I’m saying for you to be careful with people. That you have classified and unclassified facts. My opinion to be fair with people. Because when I say, I will not regret when i say I’m enemy combatant. I did or not I know there are other but there are many Detainees which you receive classified against them maybe, maybe not take away from me for many Detainees false witnesses. This only advice.

PRESIDENT: So you are aware that other.,.

DETAINEE: Yes.

PRESIDENT: People made false statement as a result of this?

DETAINEE: I did also.

PRESIDENT: Uh huh.

DETAINEE: I told him, I know him yes. There are and they are. Not even you show me. This I don’t know him I never met him at all. So, unclassified which is both classified and unclassified so this is you know him you don’t know him. You have to be fair with people. There are many many people which they have never been part of the Taliban. Afghanistan there have been many people arrested for example people who have been arrested after October 2001 after make attack against Afghanistan many of them just arrive after they don’t what has happen. When Russian came to Afghanistan they felt they went back but they did anything with Taliban and al Qaida then came after that. I don’t know why it was younger people same thing for Afghanis people they show Afghanis people. I will give example one. FIis name is Sayed Habib. This I remember. [REDACTED]

PRESIDENT: Alright.

PRESIDENT: Now what.

DETAINEE: For me nothing which was recorded. For which is written here is not related

PRESIDENT: I understand.

PRESIDENT: I do note that in one of the exhibits you indicate you are not under any pressure or duress today. Is that correct?

DETAINEE: That is about I’m hearing today. Yes.

PRESIDENT: So anything.

DETAINEE: Some of this information, I not state it to them.

PRESIDENT: The information that you are telling us today, so we are clear. You do not believe you are under any pressure or threat or duress to speak to us today, is that correct?

DETAINEE: Yes, that’s correct.

PRESIDENT: Alright.

PRESIDENT: Now what you have told us about your previous treatment is on the record of these proceeding now and will be reported for any investigation that may be appropriate. Also, we will consider what you have told us in making our determination regarding your enemy combatant status.

DETAINEE: I hope you will take care of other Detainees with what I said. It’s up to you.

PRESIDENT: I will do as I’ve said. I’ll see to it that it is reported.

PRESIDENT: Alright. At this point, we are going to go into the final statement but I do want to give the opportunity to the Recorder, PR, and Tribunal member to ask questions if they would like. So, what will do is proceed then to the Detainee’s final statement and then I’ll have a question and answer session following that. Alright just give me a moment.

PRES1DENT: Alright.

PRESIDENT: Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, this concludes the presentation of unclassified information to the Tribunal. We are about to conclude the unclassified portion of the hearing. Do you wish to now make any final statement to the Tribunal? You have the assistance of your PR.

DETAINEE: I make a two part. Maybe he will read then I will go also.

PRESIDENT: Very well. You may continue.

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: Mr. President, the Detainee has asked me to read his final statement to the
Tribunal with the understanding he may interject or add statements if he needs to, to correct what I say. According to the Detainee:

“1 hereby admit and affirm without duress to the following:

I. I swore Bay’aat (i.e., allegiance) to Sheikh Usama Bin Laden to conduct Jihad of self and money, and also Hijrah (i.e., expatriation to any location in the world where Jihad is required).
2. I was a member of the Al Qaida Council.
3. I was the Media Operations Director for Al-Sahab, or ‘The Clouds,’ under Dr. Ayman AlZawahiri. Al-Sahab is the media outlet that provided Al-Qaida-sponsored information to Al Jazeera. Four.”

DETAINEE: [speaking inaudibly to Personal Representative]

PRESIDENT: Please tell.

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: In other channels or other media outlets.

PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: [continuing] “4. I was the Operational Director for Sheikh Usama Bin Laden for the organizing, planning, follow-up, and execution of the 9/1l Operation under the Military Commander, Sheikh Abu Hafs Al-Masri Subhi Abu Sittah.
5. I was the Military Operational Commander for all foreign operations around the world under the direction of Sheikh Usama Bin Laden and Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri.
6. I was directly in charge, after the death of Sheikh Abu Flafs Al-Masri Subhi Abu Sittah, of managing and following up on the Cell for the Production of Biological Weapons, such as anthrax and others, and following up on Dirty Bomb Operations on American soil.
7. I was Emir (i.e., commander) of Beit Al Shuhada (i.e., the Martyrs’ I-louse) in the state of Kandahar, Afghanistan, which housed the 9/11 hijackers. There I was responsible for their World Trade Center Operation, from A to Z, right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in for those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of of buildings training and readiness for the execution of the 9/11 Operation. Also, I hereby admit and affirm without duress that I was a responsible participant, principal planner, trainer, financier (via the Military Council Treasury), executor, and/or a personal participant in the following:

1. I was responsible for the 1993
2. I was responsible for the 9/11
3. I decapitated with my blessed the city of Karachi, Pakistan me on the Internet holding his head.
4. I was responsible for the Shoe Bomber Operation to down two American airplanes.
5. I was responsible for the Filka Island Operation in Kuwait that killed two American soldiers.
6. I was responsible for the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia, which was frequented by British and Australian nationals.
7. I was responsible for planning, training, surveying, and financing the New (or Second) Wave attacks against the following skyscrapers after 9/1l:
a. Library Tower, California.
b. Sears Tower, Chicago,
c. Plaza Bank, Washington state. [doubtful]
d. The Empire State Building, New York City.
8. I was responsible for planning, financing, & follow-up of Operations to destroy American military vessels and oil tankers in the Straights of Flormuz, the Straights of Gibralter, and the Port of Singapore.
9. I was responsible for planning, training, surveying, and financing for the Operation to bomb and destroy the Panama Canal.
10. I was responsible for surveying and financing for the assassination of several former American Presidents, including President Carter.
11. I was responsible for surveying, planning, and financing for the bombing of suspension bridges in New York.
12. I was responsible for planning to destroy the Sears Tower by burning a few fuel or oil tanker trucks beneath it or around it.
13. I was responsible for planning, surveying, and financing for the operation to destroy Heathrow Airport, the Canary Wharf Building, and Big Ben on British soil.
14. I was responsible for planning, surveying, and financing for the destruction of many night clubs frequented by American and British citizens on Thailand soil.
15. I was responsible for surveying and financing for the destruction of the New York Stock Exchange and other financial targets after 9/1l.
16. I was responsible for planning, financing, and surveying for the destruction in the Israeli city of Elat by using airplanes leaving from Saudi Arabia.
17. I was responsible for planning, surveying, and financing for the destruction of American embassies in Indonesia, Australia, and Japan.
18. I was responsible for surveying and financing for the destruction of the Israeli embassy in India. Azerbaijan, the Philippines, and Australia.
19. I was responsible for surveying and financing for the destruction of an Israeh El-Al Airlines flight on Thailand soil departing from Bangkok Airport.
20. I was responsible for sending several Mujahadeen into Israel to conduct surveillance to hit several strategic targets deep in Israel.
21. I was responsible for the bombing of the hotel in Mombasa that is frequented by Jewish travelers via El-Al airlines.
22. I was responsible for launching a Russian-made SA-7 surface-to-air missile on El-Al or other Jewish airliner departing from Mombasa.
23. I was responsible for planning and surveying to hit American targets in South Korea, such as American military bases and a few night clubs frequented by American soldiers.
24. I was responsible for financial, excuse me, I was responsible for providing financial support to hit American, Jewish, and British targets in Turkey.
25. I was responsible for surveillance needed to hit nuclear power plants that generate electricity in several U.S. states.
26. I was responsible for planning, surveying, and financing to hit NATO Headquarters in Europe.
27. I was responsible for the planning and surveying needed to execute the Bojinka Operation, which was designed to down twelve American airplanes full of passengers. I personally monitored a round-trip, Manila-to-Seoul, Pan Am flight.
28. I was responsible for the assassination attempt against President Clinton during his visit to the Philippines in 1994 or 1995.
29. I was responsible for the assassination attempt against Pope John Paul the second while he was visiting the Philippines.”

DETAINEE: I was not responsible, but share.

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: I shared responsibility. I will restate number twenty nine.

29. “I shared responsibility for the assassination attempt against Pope John Paul the second while he was visiting the Philippines.
30. I was responsible for the training and financing for the assassination of Pakistan’s President Musharaf
31. I was responsible for the attempt to destroy an American oil company owned by the Jewish former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia.”

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: Sir, that concludes the written portion of the Detainee’s final statement and as he has alluded to earlier he has some additional comments he would like to make.

PRESIDENT: Alright. Before you proceed, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the statement that was just read by the Personal Representative, were those your words?

BEGIN DETAINEE ORAL STATEMENT

DETAINEE: Yes. And I want to add some of this one just for some verification. It like some operations before I join al Qaida. Before I remember al Qaida which is related to Bojinka Operation I went to destination involve to us in 94, 95. Some Operations which means out of al Qaida. It’s like beheading Daniel Pearl. It’s not related to al Qaida. It was shared in Pakistani. Other group, Mujahadeen. The story of Daniel Pearl, because he stated for the Pakistanis, group that he was working with the both. His mission was in Pakistan to track about Richard Reed trip to Israel. Richard Reed, do you have trip? You send it Israel to make set for targets in Israel. His mission in Pakistan from Israeli intelligence, Mosad, to make interview to ask about when he was there. Also, he mention to them he was both. He have relation with CIA people and were the Mosad. But he was not related to al Qaida at all or UBL. It is related to the Pakistan Mujahadeen group. Other operations mostly are some word I’m not accurate in saying. I’m responsible but if you read the heading history. The line there [Indicating to Personal Representative a place or Exhibit D-c].

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: [Reading] “Also, hereby admit and affirm without duress that I was a responsible participant, principle planner, trainer, financier,”

DETAINEE: For this is not necessary as I responsible, responsible. But with in these things responsible participant in finances.

PRESIDENT: I understand. I want to be clear, though, is you that were the author of that document.

DETAINEE: That’s right.

PRESIDENT: That it is true?

DETAINEE: That’s true.

PRESIDENT: Alright. You may continue with your statement.

DETAINEE: Okay. I start in Arabic,

PRESIDENT: Please.

DETAINEE(through translator): In the name of God the most compassionate, the most merciful, and if any fail to retaliation by way of charity and. I apologize. I will start again. And if any fail to judge by the light of Allah has revealed, they are no better than wrong doers, unbelievers, and the unjust.

DETAINEE: For this verse, I not take the oath, Take an oath is a part of your Tribunal and I’ll not accept it. To be or accept the Tribunal as to be, I’ll accept it. That I’m accepting American constitution, American law or whatever you are doing here. This is why religiously I cannot accept anything you do. Just to explain for this one, does not mean I’m not saying that I’m lying. When I not take oath does not mean I’m lying. You know very well peoples take oath and they will lie. You know the President he did this before he just makes his oath and he lied. So sometimes when I’m not making oath does not mean I’m lying.

PRESIDENT: I understand.

DETAINEE: Second thing. When I wrote this thing. I mean, the PR he told me that President may stop you at anytime and he don’t like big mouth nor you to talk too much. To be within subject. So, I will try to be within the enemy combatant subject

PRESIDENT: You can say whatever you’d like to say so long as it’s relevant to what we arc discussing here today.

DETAINEE: Okay, thanks.

DETAINEE: What I wrote here, is not I’m making myself hero, when I said I was responsible for this or that. But your are military man. You know very well there are language for any war. So, there are, we are when I admitting these things I’m not saying I’m not did it. I did it but this the language of any war. If America they want to invade Iraq they will not send for Saddam roses or kisses they send for a bombardment. This is the best way if I want, If I’m fighting for anybody admit to them I’m American enemies. For sure, I’m American enemies, Usama bin Laden, he did his best press conference in American media. Mr. John Miller he been there when he made declaration against Jihad, against America. And he said it is not no need for me now to make explanation of what he said but mostly he said about American military presence in Arabian peninsula and aiding Israel and many things. So when we made any war against America we are jackals fighting in the nights. I consider myself, for what you are doing, a religious thing as you consider us fundamentalist. So, we derive from religious leading that we consider we and George Washington doing same thing. As consider George Washington as hero. Muslims many of them are considering Usama bin Laden. He is doing same thing. He is just fighting. He needs his independence. Even we think that, or not me only. Many Muslims, that al Qaida or Taliban they are doing. They have been oppressed by America. This is the feeling of the prophet. So when we say we are enemy combatant, that right. We are. But I’m asking you again to be fair with many Detainees which are not enemy combatant. Because many of them have been unjustly arrested. Many, not one or two or three, Cause the definition you which wrote even from my view it is not fair. Because if was in the first Jihad times Russia. So I have to be Russian enemy. But America supported me in this because I’m their alliances when I was fighting Russia. Same job I’m doing. I’m fighting. I was fighting there Russia now I’m fighting America. So, many people who been in Afghanistan never live. Afghanistan stay in but they not share Taliban or al Qaida. They been Russian time and they cannot go back to their home with their corrupted government. They stayed there and when America invaded Afghanistan parliament. They had been arrest. They never have been with Taliban or the others. So many people consider them as enemy but they are not. Because definitions are very wide definition so people they came after October of 2002, 2001. When America invaded Afghanistan, they just arrive in Afghanistan cause the hear there enemy. They don’t know what it means al Qaida or Usama bin Laden or Taliban. They don’t care about these things. They heard they were enemy in Afghanistan they just arrived, As they heard first time Russian invade Afghanistan. They arrive they fought when back than they came. They don’t know what’s going on and Taliban they been head of government. You consider me even Taliban even the president of whole government. Many people they join Taliban because they are the government. When Karzai they came they join Karzai when come they join whatever public they don’t know what is going on. So, many Taliban fight even the he fighters because they just because public. The government is Taliban then until now CIA don’t have exactly definition well who is Taliban, who is al Qaida. Your Tribunal now are discussing he is enemy or not and that is one of your jobs. So this is why you find many Afghanis people, Pakistanis people even, they don’t know what going on they just hear they are fighting and they help Muslim in Afghanistan. Then what. There are some infidels which they came here and they have to help them. But then there weren’t any intend to do anything against America. Taliban themselves between Taliban they said Afghanistan which they never again against 9/11 operation. The rejection between senior of Taliban of what al Qaida are doing. Many of Taliban rejected what they are doing. Even many Taliban, they not agree about why we are in Afghanistan. Some of them they have been with us. Taliban never in their life at all before America invade them the intend to do anything against America. They never been with al Qaida. Does not mean we are here as American now. They gave political asylum for many countries. They gave for Chinese oppositions or a North Korean but that does not mean they are with them same thing many of Taliban. They harbor us as al Qaida does not mean we are together. So, this is why I’m asking you to be fair with Afghanis and Pakistanis and many Arabs which been in Afghanistan. Many of them been unjustly. The funny story they been Sunni government they sent some spies to assassinate UBL then we arrested them sent them to Afghanistan Taliban. Taliban put them into prison. Americans they came and arrest them as enemy combatant. They brought them here. So, even if they are my enemy but not fair to be there with me. This is what I’m saying. The way of the war, you know, very well, any country waging war against their enemy the language of the war are killing. If man and woman they be together as a marriage that is up to the kids, children. But if you and me, two nations, will be together in war the others are victims. This is the way of the language. You know 40 million people were killed in World War One. Ten million kill in World War. You know that two million four hundred thousand be killed in the Korean War. So this language of the war. Any people who, when Usama Bin Laden say I’m waging war because such such reason, now he declared it. But when you said I’m terrorist, I think it is deceiving peoples. Terrorists, enemy combatant. All these definitions as CIA you can make whatever you want. Now, you told me when I ask about the witnesses, I’m not convinced that this related to the matter. It is up to you. Maybe I’m convinced but your are head and he [gesturing to Personal Representative] is not responsible, the other, because your are head of the committee. So, finally it’s your war but the problem is no definitions of many words. It would be widely definite that many people be oppressed. Because war, for sure, there will be victims. When I said I’m not happy that three thousand been killed in America, I feel sorry even. I don’t like to kill children and the kids. Never Islam are, give me green light to kill peoples. Killing, as in the Christianity, Jews, and Islam, are prohibited. But there are exception of rule when you are killing people in Iraq. You said we have to do it. We don’t like Saddam. But this is the way to deal with Saddam. Same thing you are saying. Same language you use, I use. When you are invading two- thirds of Mexican, you call your war manifest destiny. It up to you to call it what you want. But other side are calling you oppressors. If now George Washington. If now we were living in the Revolutionary War and George Washington he being arrested through Britain. For sure he, they would consider him enemy combatant. But American they consider him as hero. This right the any Revolutionary War they will be as George Washington or Britain. So we are considered American Army bases which we have from seventies in Iraq. Also, in the Saudi Arabian, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain. This is kind of invasion, but I’m not here to convince you. Is not or not but mostly speech is ask you to be fair with people. I’m don’t have anything to say that I’m not enemy. This is why the language of any war in the world is killing. I mean the language of the war is victims. I don’t like to kill people. I feel very sorry they been killed kids in 9/11. What I will do? This is the language. Sometime I want to make great awakening between American to stop foreign policy in our land. I know American people are torturing us from seventies. [REDACTED] I know they talking about human rights. And I know it is against American Constitution, against American laws. But they said every law, they have exceptions, this is your bad luck you been part of the exception of our laws, They got have something to convince me but we are doing same language. But we are saying we have Sharia law, but we have Koran. What is enemy combatant in my language?

DETAINEE (through translator): Allah forbids you not with regards to those who fight you not for your faith nor drive you out of your homes from dealing kindly and justly with them. For Allah love those who are just. There is one more sentence. Allah only forbids you with regards to those who fight you for your faith and drive you out of your homes and support others in driving you out from turning to them for friendship and protection. It is such as turn to them in these circumstances that do wrong.

DETAINEE: So we are driving from whatever deed we do we ask about Koran or Hadith. We are not making up for us laws. When we need Fatwa from the religious we have to go back to see what they said scholar. To see what they said yes or not. Killing is prohibited in all what you call the people of the book, Jews, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. You know the Ten Commandments very well. The Ten Commandments are shared between all of us. We all are serving one God. Then now kill you know it very well. But war language also we have language for the war. You have to kill. But you have to care if unintentionally or intentionally target if I have if I’m not at the Pentagon. I consider it is okay. If I target now when we target in USA we choose them military target, economical, and political. So, war central victims mostly means economical target. So if now American they know UBL. He is in this house they don’t care about his kids and his. They will just bombard it. They will kill all of them and they did it. They kill wife of Dr. Ayman Zavahiri and his two daughters and his son in one bombardment. They receive a report that is his house be. I had not been there. They killed them. They arrested my kids intentionally. They are kids. They been arrested for four months they had been abused. So, for me I have patience. I know I’m not talk about what’s come to me. The American have human right. So, enemy combatant itself, it flexible word. So I think God knows that many who been arrested, they been unjustly arrested. Otherwise, military throughout history know very well. They don’t war will never stop. War start from Adam when Cain he killed Abel until now, It’s never gonna stop killing of people. This is the way of the language. American start the Revolutionary War then they starts the Mexican then Spanish War then World War One, World War Two. You read the history. You know never stopping war, This is life. But if who is enemy combatant and who is not? Finally, I finish statement. I’m asking you to be fair with other people.

PRESIDENT: Does that conclude your statement, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad?

DETAINEE: Yes.

PRESIDENT: Alright.

DETAINEE QUESTION & ANSWER

PRESIDENT: Does the Personal Representative have any questions for the Detainee based on his statement?

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE: No, Sir.

PRESIDENT: Does the Recorder have any questions for the Detainee?

RECORDER: No. Sir.

PRESIDENT: Do either of the Tribunal members wish to question the Detainee?

MEMBERS: No, sir. Nothing further Sir.

PRESIDENT: Alright.

CLOSING UNCLASSIFIED SESSION

PRESIDENT: All unclassified evidence having been provided to the Tribunal, this concludes the open tribunal session.

PRESIDENT: Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, you shall be notified of the Tribunal decision upon completion of the review of these proceed by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal convening authority in Washington, D.C. If, the Tribunal determines that you should not be classified as an enemy combatant, you will be released to your home country as soon as arrangements can he made, if however, the Tribunal determines your classification as an enemy combatant you may be eligible for an Administrative Review Board hearing at a future date.

PRESIDENT: The Administrative Review Board will make an assessment of whether there is continued reason to believe that you pose a threat to the United States or its coalition partners in the ongoing armed conflict against terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda and its affiliates and supporters or whether there are other factors bearing upon the need for continued detention.

PRESIDENT: You will have the opportunity to be heard and to present relevant information to the Administrative Review Board. You can present information from your family and friends that might help you at that Board. You are encouraged to contact them as soon as possible to begin to gather information that may help you.

PRESIDENT: A military officer will be assigned at a later date to assist you in the Administrative Review Board process.

ADJOURN OPEN SESSION

PRES1DENT: The open session of this Tribunal hearing is adjourned.

RECORDER: The time is 2:43pm. The date is 10 March 2007.

RECORDER: All Rise.

[The Tribunal withdrew from the hearing room]

AUTHENTICATION

I certify the material contained in this transcript is a true and accurate verbatim rendering of the testimony and English language translation of Detainee’s words given during the open session of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal of ISN 10024.

[REDACTED]
CAPT JAGC USN
Tribual President

UNCLASSIFIED