Cheney Sent Norad to Alaska on 9-11

Cheney’s 5 War Games

Left New York & DC Defenseless on 9-11-2001

Dick Cheney was in charge of managing all training exercises for the Air Force on Sept. 11, 2001. Cheney oversaw at least five (5) War Games and terror drills, including several exercises of NORAD, the Air Force agency protecting America from attacks by air.

Michael Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon documents a live-fly drill on 9/11 titled “Vigilant Warrior.” The Vigilant Warrior drill conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff involved at least one real Commercial Aircraft in the skies, to simulate exactly the 4 Airliners hijacked on 9/11.

On April 18 2004 USA Today reported, "NORAD had drills of jets as weapons." Their report cited NORAD officials who confirmed live-fly drills were conducted using hijacked Airliners originating from the continental United States. They were used as weapons crashing into targets like the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Remember, right after 9/11, Condi Rice and the Bush administration claimed they had "no idea" aircraft could be used as weapons. Then why were they drilling such scenarios before and during 9/11?

Joint Chiefs of Staff drill “Vigilant Warrior” was run through Secret Service lines from a central command center under the White House by Vice President ‘Big’ Dick Cheney.

Additional War Games on 9/11 included “Northern Vigilance”, that pulled Air Force fighters from the East Coast of the United States up into Canada and Alaska simulating an attack out of Russia.

All of those fighters were rendered useless as the 9/11 plot unfolded too far away to respond.

One of the components of this drill included "false blips" (radar injects simulating aircraft in flight) placed on FAA radar screens. FAA head Jane Garvey said they suspected up to 11 hijackings on 9/11.

Air War Over America documents that General Arnold of NORAD didn't pull out of the War Game titled “Vigilant Guardian” until reports of flight 93 being hijacked were coming in.

Now imagine being an air traffic controller with both real planes and "false blips" simulating hijackings on your screens when suddenly there are real, multiple, hijackings. Where do you send the few Air Force fighters that you have?

Cheney had other 9/11 War Games called “Northern Guardian,” and “Northern Denial” (confirmed by Harper's Magazine). Also he had a drill for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) in which a plane crashes into NRO headquarters at precisely the time of the actual crashes in New York. The NRO features photos of air traffic from satellites. They could have distinguished real hijackings from phony exercise blips. The NRO employees were sent home for the day, because of Cheney’s exercise.

Re-Open the 9-11 Investigation

Cheney’s War Games Mean War on Terror is Phony

S.M. Peace Club and PeaceTable.org

Iraq War for No WMDs, No Nukes is MURDER

Nuremberg Lesson

by Michael Mandel

This month marks the 60th anniversary of the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, the basic legal document for the trial of the major Nazi war criminals that commenced in November 1945.

One of the great innovations of that charter was the charge of "Crimes Against Peace," defined as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances."

In a famous passage from their judgment of the following year, the four judges of the tribunal (American, British, French and Russian) declared the crime of aggressive war to be "the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

The innovation of the crime of aggressive war was in fact denounced by the Nazi defendants as "ex post facto law," but Justice Robert Jackson, America's prosecutor at Nuremberg, had an answer for this: Illegal wars were nothing more than mass murder, and there was nothing ex post facto about the crime of murder. Here's what Jackson said to the tribunal in his opening statement on Nov. 21, 1945:

Any resort to war - any kind of war - is a resort to means that are inherently criminal. War inevitably is a course of killings, assaults, deprivations of liberty and destruction of property. An honestly defensive war is, of course, legal and saves those lawfully conducting it from criminality. But inherently criminal acts cannot be defended by showing that those who committed them were engaged in a war, when war itself is illegal. The very minimum legal consequence of the treaties making aggressive war illegal is to strip those who incite or wage them of every defense the law ever gave, and to leave the war-makers subject to judgment by the usually accepted principles of the law of crimes.

The crime of aggression is nowhere to be seen in modern international criminal codes, and leading the charge against including it has been the United States itself. It's easy to see why. The war in Iraq, for one example, constitutes the quintessential war of aggression, falling very far short, rhetoric apart, of any justification in self- defense or authorization by the Security Council of the United Nations, the only two accepted legal grounds for war in international law. The U.N. Charter is one of those "international treaties" mentioned in the London Charter of 1945. And with the best estimates of the cost in Iraqi civilian lives ranging between 25,000 (Iraq body count) and 100,000 (Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore), all well within prewar predictions, it seems perverse to keep on insisting that this was a "humanitarian intervention," itself a dubious legal ground for war. In fact, it amounts to rather a lot of counts of murder on Jackson's definition.

To put this in some kind of perspective, in Canada the press has recently been obsessed with sex killer Karla Homolka, who participated with her husband, Paul Bernardo, in the sadistic murder of two teenage girls, and then served only 12 years in jail for it. And the British press has been desperate to understand how four Britons could have had it within them to murder 52 people on July 7. The claim that civilians aren't targeted by American weaponry ("collateral damage") is irrelevant. Not only does Jackson's definition apply to soldiers as well, but, according to most definitions of murder, it's enough that the criminal knew that his or her unlawful behavior would result in death, whether or not it was meant to. Under Texas law, for example, a person commits murder if he or she "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual." It's also murder if the person "intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual."

Nuremberg prosecutor Bernard Meltzer wrote soon after the Nazi trials that, "a modern war, no matter how chivalrous, involves so much misery that to punish deviations from the conventions without punishing the instigators of an aggressive war seems like a mocking exercise in gentlemanly futility."

Perhaps it is worth pondering, in the midst of the immense suffering unleashed by the Iraq war whether we are engaged in the same mocking exercise when we prosecute those far down the chain of command for violations of the Geneva Conventions and let the unleashers of illegal wars get away with murder.

Michael Mandel is a professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University.

Democrats Need Courage

Who Will Say 'No More?'
By Gary Hart, in The Washington Post

"Waist deep in the Big Muddy and the big fool said to push on," warned an anti-Vietnam war song those many years ago. The McGovern presidential campaign, in those days, which I know something about, is widely viewed as a cause for the decline of the Democratic Party, a gateway through which a new conservative era entered.

Like the cat that jumped on a hot stove and thereafter wouldn't jump on any stove, hot or cold, today's Democratic leaders didn't want to make that mistake again. Many supported the Iraq war resolution and -- as the Big Muddy is rising yet again -- now find themselves tongue-tied or trying to trump a war president by calling for deployment of more troops. Thus does good money follow bad and bad politics get even worse.

History will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war that is draining the finest military in the world, diverting Guard and reserve forces that should be on the front line of homeland defense, shredding international alliances that prevailed in two world wars and the Cold War, accumulating staggering deficits, misdirecting revenue from education to rebuilding Iraqi buildings we've blown up, and weakening America's national security.

But what will history say about an opposition party that stands silent while all this goes on? My generation of Democrats jumped on the hot stove of Vietnam and now, with its members in positions of responsibility, it is afraid of jumping on any political stove. In their leaders, the American people look for strength, determination and self-confidence, but they also look for courage, wisdom, judgment and, in times of moral crisis, the willingness to say: "I was wrong."

To stay silent during such a crisis, and particularly to harbor the thought that the administration's misfortune is the Democrats' fortune, is cowardly. In 2008 I want a leader who is willing now to say: "I made a mistake, and for my mistake I am going to Iraq and accompanying the next planeload of flag-draped coffins back to Dover Air Force Base. And I am going to ask forgiveness for my mistake from every parent who will talk to me."

Further, this leader should say: "I am now going to give a series of speeches across the country documenting how the administration did not tell the American people the truth, why this war is making our country more vulnerable and less secure, how we can drive a wedge between Iraqi insurgents and outside jihadists and leave Iraq for the Iraqis to govern, how we can repair the damage done to our military, what we and our allies can do to dry up the jihadists' swamp, and what dramatic steps we must take to become energy-secure and prevent Gulf Wars III, IV and so on."

At stake is not just the leadership of the Democratic Party and the nation but our nation's honor, our nobility and our principles. Franklin D. Roosevelt established a national community based on social justice. Harry Truman created international networks that repaired the damage of World War II and defeated communism. John F. Kennedy recaptured the ideal of the republic and the sense of civic duty. To expect to enter this pantheon, the next Democratic leader must now undertake all three tasks.

But this cannot be done while the water is rising in the Big Muddy of the Middle East. No Democrat, especially one now silent, should expect election by default. The public trust must be earned, and speaking clearly, candidly and forcefully now about the mess in Iraq is the place to begin.

The real defeatists today are not those protesting the war. The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating "Stay the course" even when the course, whatever it now is, is light years away from the one originally undertaken. The truth is we're way off course. We've stumbled into a hornet's nest. We've weakened ourselves at home and in the world. We are less secure today than before this war began.

Who now has the courage to say this?

---

The writer is a former Democratic Senator from Colorado.