The Omar Sheikh Files

Exactly Who Was Involved In The Sept 11 Attacks
Now Being Used As A Pretext
To Invade Iraq, The Secular Arab State That Had Nothing To Do With Them?

British Citizen Omar Sheikh
Why is he not on trial for his reported role in 911?

"Omar Sheikh... has... been named as one of the key financiers of Mohammed Atta,
the pilot of one of the jets that hit the World Trade Centre on September 11."
London Daily Telegraph, 27 Jan 2002

"The goal has never been to get bin Laden"
US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers
Associated Press/CNN, 5 April 2002

"The ex-police chief told [CIA veteran and terrorism expert Bob] Baer that [Khalid Shaikh] Mohammed 'is going to hijack some planes.' The ex-police chief said his basis for this was evidence developed by police and Qatari intelligence... Baer sent this information [before 911] to a friend in the CIA Counter-terrorist Center who forwarded the information to his superiors. Baer heard nothing. 'There was no interest,' he said.... After Pearl's murder [for which Omar Sheikh has been convicted], Baer said, he took his information about Mohammed to the Justice Department, but again, as with the agency, he never received a call nor did the department express any interest."
UPI Exclusive: Pearl tracked al Qaida
United Press International, 30 September 2002

"A secret [PNAC] blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001. ....."
Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
Sunday Herald, 15 Sept 2002

"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 [i.e. months before 911] that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary. Vice-president Dick Cheney, who chairs the White House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report [on which this policy was built] from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Snr...."
Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis
Sunday Herald, 6 October 2002

"The case was made [15 September 2001] for an attack against Iraq by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary and one of the more hawkish members of the Administration. He argued that September 11 provided a perfect pretext to hit Baghdad."
Decision to deal with bin Laden first, then Saddam
London Times, 29 August 2002

"Dwindling domestic supplies and surging demand could lead to a severe gas shortage within three years, the Department of Trade and Industry warned British consumers yesterday."
Gas shortage in Britain 'due within three years'
London Times, 26 June 2002

"Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas..."
EIA Country Analysis - Iraq
US Energy Information Administration, October 2002

"...if it's appropriate to carry out pre-emptive strikes on countries that sponsor terrorism and secretly develop nuclear weapons, then we could launch an invasion today - of Pakistan."
The Osirak Option
New York Times, 15 November 2002

"News that a British-born Islamic militant has been found guilty of the murder of US journalist Daniel Pearl has been welcomed by the Foreign Office. Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh has been sentenced to death for abducting and murdering the Wall Street Journal reporter [in Pakistan]."
UK welcomes Pearl murder verdicts
BBC Online, 15 July 2002

"Throughout the trial, Omar [Sheikh] maintained that -- although he knew how and by who Pearl had been killed -- he was not himself responsible. Subsequently, there were reports that four other men had also been arrested by Pakistani police in connection with the murder. But Pakistani security officials told UPI that in order for the new suspects to be put on trial, the four convicted men would also have to be tried again, because evidence against the new suspects undermined the case against Omar and his accomplices....The director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, Josef Bodansky, told UPI emphatically, 'Mohammed was Pearl's killer'....."
UPI Exclusive: Pearl tracked al Qaida
United Press International, 30 September 2002

"..... it is precisely the same man used by [the head of Pakistani Intelligence Services] General Mahmoud to wire money to 911 hijacker Mohammed Atta who has now been detained and tried for the murder of Pearl.....why is Sheikh still not being charged for his alleged involvement in the 911 attacks now that he is finally detained?.... the execution of Sheikh would certainly be useful in dealing with the CIA's problem of how to limit further investigation into any wider role it may have played in the events surrounding 911 via its involvement with the ISI...... In this respect the clamour from the Bush administration to spare Sheikh's life so that he can give evidence as to General Mahmoud's and his own involvement in the transfer of 911 money to Mohammed Atta is deafening by virtue of its total absence... Sheikh is a British born and educated Pakistani. He is a British Citizen. But this has not resulted in the British government securing an open trial for him....The possibility that Sheikh has been framed (certainly he is an ideal candidate given his previous involvement with militant groups) in order to engineer his execution cannot be discounted.... Given the widespread culture of deception and lying uncovered within the British Foreign Office during the Scott inquiry into the UK's illegal supply of arms to Saddam Hussein, the omens do not look good."
What Did Britain Know About 911?
'Fight Smart', 28 Aug 2002

"To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received a response from the Pakistan Government for his request for information on the detention of Mr. Sheikh; and if it provides evidence of a link between Mr. Sheikh and the September 11 attacks."
Question asked through the British House of Commons
by the Member of Parliament for Winchester at the request of the editor of 'Fight Smart'
Published in Hansard, the official British parliamentary record, 16 Dec 2002

".... As the legal process [in relation to Sheikh's alleged murder of Pearl] is ongoing, it would be inappropriate to comment on possible linkages to other terrorist crimes."
Answer provided by Foreign Office Minister for South Asia and the Far East
Published in Hansard, the official British parliamentary record, 16 Dec 2002

Omar Sheikh is a British born and educated Islamic militant who has been sentenced to death in Pakistan for the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in early 2002. He almost certainly didn't do it.

This is confirmed by, amongst other reports, a United Press International newswire issued last September which quotes Bob Baer, a former CIA case officer. Baer claims to hold important details relating to the actual person believed to have carried out the crime (before Christmas Baer appeared on the BBC's flagship documentary programme 'Panorama' to voice his opposition to the proposed war against Iraq, despite being personally involved in a previous plot with Kurds and Iraqi dissidents to unseat Saddam Hussein).

Despite this situation the UK government has welcomed the conviction of Sheikh for Pearl's murder even though it is clear he was not given a fair trial and an appeal is pending (the principal evidence against him was a withdrawn confession believed to have been extracted after beatings and the threat of rape to female members of Sheikh's family).

Despite his history of militant Islamic activity, a frame-up of Sheikh in relation to Pearl's death looks likely. It is certainly an interesting coincidence that, according to the London Times 25 February 2002, "Wendy Chamberlain, the US Ambassador to Pakistan, discussed the case [of Sheikh] with the Pakistani Foreign Minister just two days before the kidnap of Pearl."

That was in January 2002, by which time there had been a great deal of discussion on the internet about the alleged role of Sheikh in the 911 attacks. The nature of that discussion is likely to be highly damaging to the Bush Administration if the conclusions reached by some researchers regarding US foreknowledge of the attacks ultimately prove to be valid.

Sheikh himself appears to be one of two key figures who might be able to give first hand testimony of central relevance to these matters. The other is the former head of the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, who was suddenly 'retired' in October 2001 once the Indian government and the FBI had reported their claimed discovery of Sheikh's involvement in the 911 attacks (they say that it was ISI chief General Mahmoud who instructed Sheikh to make a large money transfer to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta before the attacks. It is also now known that it was Mahmoud who was meeting with the Bush administration in Washington immediately before and during the attacks).

Since then the issue has largely disappeared from the press despite the major attention given to Sheikh as a result of the Pearl murder trial. Within the last month, however, the editor of 'Fight Smart' has been able to secure a British parliamentary question on the matter via the Member of Parliament for Winchester, Mark Oaten, after providing him with a briefing.

The question - now formally lodged in the parliamentary record of 'Hansard' - states: "To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received a response from the Pakistan Government for his request for information on the detention of Mr. Sheikh; and if it provides evidence of a link between Mr. Sheikh and the September 11 attacks."

Although confirming that it has requested access to Sheikh and that it has objected to his death sentence, the official response from the Foreign Office ducks the 911 issue stating: "As the legal process [in relation to the murder of Daniel Pearl] is ongoing, it would be inappropriate to comment on possible linkages to other terrorist crimes."

So it would appear that the British Government considers it 'inappropriate' to comment on a situation which (if it results in the death penalty being delivered to Sheikh) will bury potentially vital evidence relating to al-Qaeda and the most infamous and unresolved terrorist act in history, the US and British response to which may have brought humanity to the edge of world war.

Officially London has no choice but to object to the death sentence imposed on Sheikh, as this is the adopted British policy in every such case throughout the world. The British government has in any case long since been pressured to press for clemency on Sheikh's behalf by the MP for Leyton and Wanstead Harry Cohen (Sheikh is a constituent of Cohen's, who again pressed the Foreign Office with a further parliamentary question published in Hansard two days after that from the MP for Winchester relating to the 911 attacks).

But beyond token responses to parliamentary questions it is doubtful whether the Foreign Office is really doing anything other than going through the motions of objection in full anticipation of a lack of co-operation from Islamabad. It is difficult not to reach this conclusion given that the Foreign Office has welcomed Sheikh's guilty verdict, despite BBC and other reports which make it clear that he has not had a fair trial. The director of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has condemned the outcome of the case stating that "considering... the known penchant of police for prosecuting the innocent even when the guilty ones can be apprehended, in Pakistan, the death penalty can only be described as unmitigated bestiality."

Just as ominously, however, is the question as to why America isn't demanding from its Pakistani ally the full investigation and trial of Sheikh for his alleged involvement in 911 before he is executed. Or is the Bush administration no longer interested in who was involved in those attacks?

What happened to the post-911 resolve expressed by George Bush on the south lawn of the White House 16 September 2001 "to find those who did this, find those who encouraged them .... and bring them to justice"? Or for that matter the commitment made by Tony Blair just a few days later to a "total determination that the people responsible for this act of terrorism are brought to justice."

Although there would now seem to be a strong whiff of cover-up in both London and Washington, events may develop further given that Sheikh has since made an appeal against his death sentence which may eventually go as far as the Pakistani Supreme Court. This is a situation potentially filled with dynamite. According to an report in Sheikh's UK hometown newspaper during his initial trial (Wanstead and Woodford Guardian 25 April): "It is believed that Pakistan officials are concerned that a public trial will expose possible links between Sheikh and Pakistan's powerful ISI intelligence agency."

A discussion paper on the initial trial produced 7 July by the India based South Asia Analysis Group indicates that such embarrassment would not necessarily stop at Islamabad: "In the face of his retraction of the confession, the only direct evidence available to the court was the statement of a driver who testified that on the day Pearl was kidnapped he (Pearl) and Omar Sheikh had travelled in his taxi. Despite the absence of any other significant direct evidence, the court held the charge of being a terrorist proved against him. There was no evidence to connect Omar Sheikh with the murder of Pearl after he was kidnapped.... The defence lawyers have strongly criticised the verdict on the ground that it was politically motivated and pronounced under American pressure. They have also alleged that the English language used in the judgement differed from the language used by the same judge in his past judgements and that this showed that he merely read out a judgement, which had been drafted in Islamabad. They also cited comments made by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's military dictator, during media interviews about the possibility of Omar Sheikh being hanged after the trial thereby rendering pointless the question of his possible extradition to the US and contended that these showed that the order to award the death penalty came from Musharraf himself.... While the devious handling of the case by Musharraf is not a surprise, what is surprising and beyond comprehension is the seeming willingness of the US to go along with him in his devious efforts.... one finds it difficult not to suspect that the US itself is not really keen on the extradition of Omar Sheikh lest his interrogation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the US lead to his admission of his links with Musharraf, the ISI and bin Laden .... thereby calling into question the US policy of backing Musharraf."

But even that may not be the most embarrassing element of the trail if pursued to its fullest extent. At the time of his death Pearl was believed to have been investigating the ISI, an arm of the Pakistani government long known for its well established links with the CIA. Whether or not Pearl was pursuing any aspect of the Mahmoud-Sheikh story is unknown, although as the 'hottest' ISI discussion topic since the previous autumn it would be surprising if he was unaware of it.

However, what is clear is that Bob Baer himself had been feeding Pearl 911-related material. This included details of Baer's claim that he gave the CIA specific information about hijackings being planned by al-Qaeda pre-911 (an account also corroborated by one other CIA veteran according to United Press International.)

Baer says that "There was no interest" in this information from the CIA. In frustration Baer passed the information onto Pearl, but unfortunately Pearl did not call Baer to begin work on the story until the day itself of the 911 attacks (a report in the Financial Times 12 Jan 2002 states that Baer was also warned by a Gulf prince during 2001 that a "spectacular terrorist operation" was being planned and would take place shortly).

Nonetheless, as an investigative journalist previously responsible for exposing false claims of Serb atrocities in Kosovo fed to the media by NATO, Pearl is unlikely to have been afraid of embarrassing Washington once he had taken up the lead. According to a source 'close to the Pakistani foreign office' quoted by Gulf News 25 March: "Details of any U.S.-ISI cooperation [being investigated by Pearl before his murder] would of course not be appreciated even in Washington, especially regarding U.S. cooperation in promoting any kind of Islamic militancy."

In this context the murder of Pearl and any consequential execution of Sheikh might serve to tidy things up nicely.

All of which brings us back to the head of Musharraf's intelligence service, ISI chief General Mahmoud. The awkward fact remains that it was he who was reportedly in league with Sheikh, and it was he who was visiting Bush administration representatives in Washington immediately before and during the 911 attacks.

As one Pakistani commentator put it in a prophetic article in the Karachi News on 10 Sept 2001, the day before the attacks: "ISI Chief Lt-Gen. Mahmoud's week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council. Officially, he is on a routine visit in return to CIA Director George Tenet's earlier visit to Islamabad. Official sources confirm that he met Tenet this week. He also held long parleys with unspecified officials at the White House and the Pentagon. But the most important meeting was with Marc Grossman, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. One can safely guess that the discussions must have centred around Afghanistan . . . [and] Osama bin Laden. What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, Mahmoud's predecessor, was here, during Nawaz Sharif's government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days."

The importance of keeping Sheikh alive at this point for further testimony is clear. In the words of Harry Cohen, Sheikh's own British Member of Parliament: "I am opposed to the death sentence and also there may be information [Omar] Sheikh can give us about terrorism.".

Given that the 911-Sheikh connection has now been raised directly through the British parliament it is possible that the national and international press may start to take a closer interest in the case. It is certainly urgently required if the increasingly criticised 'war against terrorism' is not to risk descending into anything other than a completely unaccountable fraud .

Indeed the evidence is steadily mounting that the so-called 'war against terrorism' is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. It is a tool which relies in part on manipulating the easily stimulated fear of terrorist acts to win public consent for actions which would otherwise be politically unacceptable. With this approach fear levels can be made to climb steeply at any time when a political diversion or public support for unpalatable policy is needed, as happened with the dirty bomber charade in America during the summer (to put this fearmongering strategy into perspective it is worth remembering that each year four to five times as many Americans die at the hands of fellow Americans in homicides as were killed on 911. To date Americans have been a far greater threat to Americans than any al-Qaeda or other terrorist group).

It is possible that one day a dirty bomb could be detonated in the US, but on this occasion numerous press reports made it clear that the threat was a government generated fabrication. Comparing the approach to the situation in Nazi Germany in the 1940s, international financier George Soros commented on that particular incident in the London Times 14 June as follows: "I feel that what happened was that [Attorney General] Ashcroft basically detonated a ‘dirty bomb plot’. The plot is his. The detonation is his. The Bush Administration is exploiting the terrorist threat for its purposes, to generate fear and to overcome constitutional constraints on the use of force.".

More importantly, however, the 'war against terrorism' is in fact a foreign policy tool which relies also in part on the selective arrest of Islamic terrorists, whilst allowing others to roam free. Giving the impression of trying to bring terrorists to justice is not the same thing as actually doing it at every opportunity. A report in the London Times as recently as 19 December states: "European security chiefs still regard Britain as a safe haven for al-Qaeda units.... A senior French security source said that Britain’s record since the [911] attacks was abysmal."

This had already become clear, for example, from the earlier case of al-Qaeda bomber Anas al-Liby and MI6's efforts to block the arrest of bin Laden. These cases were exposed by former MI5 officer David Shayler, French intelligence experts, and the Observer newspaper in November 2002 (al-Liby has allegedly been used and sheltered by the British Government for the purpose of its own state sponsored terrorist activities overseas; and there are many other cases of wilful counter-terrorism 'lapses' or direct complicity by British and US intelligence agencies acting above the law - see box at bottom 'What War Against Terrorism?').

Or as whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright enigmatically put it just before Christmas when interviewed on ABC News concerning official efforts to stop him investigating al-Qaeda before 911: "You can't know the things I know and not go public... The supervisor who was there from [FBI] headquarters was right straight across from me and started yelling at me: 'You will not open criminal investigations. I forbid any of you. You will not open criminal investigations against any of these intelligence subjects'..... There's so much more. God, there's so much more. A lot more." Clearly Wright is desperate to say more but is being blocked.

The FBI continues to illegally refuse the release of his 500 page manuscript, 'Fatal Betrayals of the Intelligence Mission', that he submitted for prepublication review in October 2001. In fact, the FBI has even refused to turn the manuscript over to Senator Shelby, Vice Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, charged with investigating America's 911 intelligence failures. Wright has now launched a lawsuit against the FBI.

As claimed by former US federal war crimes prosecutor John Loftus, some of this betrayal was to protect Enron energy interests in Afghanistan and allegedly stretches as far as Vice President Dick Cheney. According to Loftus: "... the information provided by European intelligence sources prior to 9/11 was so extensive, that it is no longer possible for either CIA or the FBI to assert a defense of incompetence... If Congress ever combines its Enron investigation with 9/11, Cheney’s whole house of cards will collapse."

The overriding motivation for these various political deceptions is the inescapable fact that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. It is already projected by some that at a time when there is likely to be increasing international competition for such resources (especially when emerging economies like China are industrialising fast), the Muslim world will control as much as ninety five per cent of remaining global oil export capacity by the end of the decade (see 'THE SECRET: Oil Crunch is Coming' by Jay Hanson).

Nothing provides a greater opportunity for western intervention in those parts of globe, and with it the associated access to hydrocarbons, than the pursuit of Islamic militants in the name of the 'war against terrorism'. This is especially so now that the wider dispersal of al-Qaeda from Afghanistan has been precipitated, even if all attempts to date to link Saddam Hussein's secular Arab state with it have proved fruitless.

According to Time magazine 13 May 2002 "[Defense Secretary] Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack [on Iraq] that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty handed." Nonetheless, the attempt to use the public's fear of international terrorism as an instrument of US foreign policy is overtly demonstrated by this further example.

Indeed, at time when its economic and technical efforts should be going into developing renewable sources of energy at home, the ongoing global pursuit of hydrocarbons by the 'civilised' world is what in reality the backward looking obsession with Iraq and the bogus 'war against terrorism' are primarily concerned with.

The US's most senior military officer, General Richard Myers, bluntly summarised the situation on CNN in April 2002: "The goal has never been to get bin Laden".

Quite the opposite in fact. On 4 September 2002 CBS News confirmed that "barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks".

It has since been reported that the intention to take military action against Iraq specifically to gain control over its oil reserves was agreed by the Bush administration no later than April 2001 (Sunday Herald 6 October). This came as a result of a report on US energy security commissioned from the James Baker Institute for Public Policy. The report was delivered to Vice President Dick Cheney by James Baker, the former US Secretary of State to George Bush Snr.

Unfortunately for the British Prime Minister this policy document exposes the vacuous nature of his claim made in response to Russian fears on the matter (London Times 11 October) that "If oil was our concern, then there are a thousand easier ways to do this - we would be doing a deal with Saddam".

The Baker report makes clear its advice that Saddam Hussein cannot be relied upon to help stabilise oil supplies from the Gulf. It concludes that: "The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets."

According to a supplementary article from the Sunday Herald the document describes how America is facing the biggest energy crisis in its history. It targets Saddam as a threat to American interests because of his control of Iraqi oilfields and recommends the use of 'military intervention' as a means to deal with situation.

As with the pursuit of US energy interests in Afghanistan the 911 attacks and the ensuing 'war against terrorism' simply provide the necessary cover to implement pre-existing plans for war. A BBC report confirms that in July 2001 the US was already planning military action against Afghanistan for October. Other press coverage confirms that this war was intended to secure access to Islamic world hydrocarbon reserves, this time in the Caspian Sea region.

Gradually the BBC itself is becoming more explicit in its discussion of the overall American 'game-plan', stating on New Year's Day 2003 that "....it can certainly be argued that the second strand in [the Bush administration's] global strategy is to secure greater supplies of foreign oil. An energy report by Vice-President Dick Cheney 18 months ago forecast that American oil imports would have to rise by more than half by 2020 - partly, of course, because the administration is not much interested in reducing consumption... the most obvious tool [for this] is the military one...To take one example, American military bases set up to fight al-Qaeda in central Asia may also serve to safeguard oil supplies, to back up the commercial exploitation of the Caspian basin."

The 911 attacks merely allowed the US to press the 'go' button for a strategy which would have otherwise been politically impossible to implement. As the Washington Post 28 January 2002 reported Bush and Blair spoke on the phone on the morning of 12 September and "The two leaders agreed it was important to first move quickly on the diplomatic front to capitalize on international outrage about the terrorist attack."

The approach that has unfolded since then is clear. As Blair informed the House of Commons Liaison Committee in July 2002: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11...".

The British Prime Minister then expanded this logic into a justification for a need to deal with Iraq, even though there is no established connection between Iraq and those attacks (to say nothing of the fact that Iraq's missiles do not have the range to get anywhere near Britain or the US in the event that the unproven intention to use them were to be applied).

With the war against Iraq potentially only weeks away the time has come to call the British Prime Minister's bluff. Is he serious about ending terrorism, or is there something else on his mind? Now that the matter has become a subject for discussion through the British parliament it would certainly be useful if the press and MPs were to put the following more specific question to Mr Blair as a test of his real purpose:

“Will the Prime Minister confirm steps will be taken by the British Government to ensure before there is an execution in Pakistan, and before any important information he holds dies with him, that British citizen Omar Sheikh (also known by a number of aliases) will be brought to trial in open court for his involvement in the attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001 as alleged by the FBI and reported in the Asian and Western media?”

For much more than his own sake the outcome of the legal proceedings surrounding Omar Sheikh is of considerable, or perhaps even unprecedented, importance. With hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of more lives now in the balance as it prepares for war, government obfuscation on the issue is not acceptable.

The words of, outgoing US Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle in the New York Times 14 November are poignant in this context: "I think we have to question whether or not we're winning the war. We haven't found bid Laden. We haven't made any real progress in many of the other areas involving the key elements of Al Qaeda. They continue to be as great a threat today as they were a year and a half ago.'' Or as one BBC report 28 December summarised the situation: "Most of the top al-Qaeda leadership, including Osama Bin Laden, remain either at large or unaccounted for."

It is certainly evident that the US government is not interested in chasing too hard if the recent alarming comments by the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Bob Graham, are anything to go by (Public Broadcasting Service 11 Dec 2002): "I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing - although that was part of it - by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States. It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it's relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today....".

His further remarks confirm that the FBI has withheld extensive information in this area from the joint Senate and House Intelligence Committee's investigations into 911. But it is also clear that similar concerns apply to the accountability and potential complicity of other intelligence agencies within the Anglo-American alliance, such as those already relating to the Baer-CIA and Shayler-MI6 sagas.

Before we go to war with Iraq and create a whole new generation of terrorists out of the ensuing chaos, we need to hear more from the British Prime Minister. We need to know why his government has apparently decided not to make a serious effort to push for a full investigation of the actions of those major terrorist suspects that are already known to exist, as exemplified by the case of Omar Sheikh.

Or was any such decision to 'look the other way' in reality that of the Bush Administration?

"Despite the absence of a body in the evidence used to convict Sheikh in the murder of Pearl the BBC states that 'Apparently one of the main reasons for proceeding with the trial in Pakistan was because of the mounting pressure from the United States'...."
What Did Britain Know About 911?
'Fight Smart', 28 Aug 2002

"I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States. I am stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing that.... as of today there are 13 requests outstanding with the FBI alone for additional information which would help us follow the trail - including the trail of foreign government involvement. That agency and others have been reticent to come forward."
Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee On Intelligence
'Improving Intelligence'
PBS Online, 11 Dec 2002

"..the Central Intelligence Agency... learned about plans for an attack 18 months before Sept. 11, and did nothing against the terrorists. In the meantime, the joint investigation of the House and Senate intelligence committees is investigating this matter. ZEIT has acquired the testimonies and reports seen by the committee.... The CIA found out about the place and timing of this meeting in advance, and asked the Malaysian secret service to keep it under surveillance... For as yet unexplained reasons, the CIA does not inform its partner services in Germany of the logistics expert's visit to Malaysia. He can return unmolested to Germany and start organzing the attacks together with the other members of his Hamburg cell. There is much indicating that the decisive plans for the attacks in the United States were put together in Malaysia."
Deadly Mistakes
Die Zeit, 1 October 2002

"Mullah Haji Abdul Samat Khaksar, the No 2 Taliban official in U.S. custody, has been waiting months for the CIA to talk to him. The former Taliban deputy interior minister says he has valuable information for the U.S. - and may be able to help locate former Taliban leader Mullah Omar.... but no senior intelligence official has come for a full interview. The CIA will not comment... he says he has sent five letters to the US embassy in Kabul offering to pass on information about al-Qaeda hideouts in Afghanistan... He claims to have information about al-Qaeda links to ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency that has been a key partner in the U.S. war on terror. "
'The Taliban Guy the CIA Won't Question'
Time Magazine, 25 February 2002, European print edition, p21

".....how could thousands of spooks who supposedly had Osama bin Laden in their cross hairs for a decade miss every single moving part? At some point, when the nation has moved beyond grief and vengefulness, CIA Director George Tenet and FBI Director Robert Mueller will have to explain how the $10 billion-a-year anti-terror system failed...."
Time Magazine 24 September 2001 on US intelligence services

"Two veteran FBI investigators say they were ordered to stop investigations into a suspected
terror cell linked to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network and the Sept. 11 attacks.... even after the [embassy] bombings, Wright said FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. "
Called Off the Trail?
ABCNews 19 Dec 2002

"....in January 2001, Vice President Cheney allegedly reinstated the intelligence block and expanded it to effectively preclude any investigations whatsoever of Saudi-Taliban-Afghan oil connections. Former FBI counter-terrorism chief John O’Neil resigned from the FBI in disgust, stating that he was ordered not to investigate Saudi-Al Qaida connections because of the Enron pipeline deal. [Former Federal Prosecutor John Loftus] has confirmed that it was O’Neil who originally discovered the AL Qaida pipeline memo after the Embassy bombings in Africa."
What Congress Does Not Know about Enron and 9/11
John Loftus, Press Release, 31 May 2002

"You have been fantastic to the Bush family. I don't think anybody did more than you did to support [my son] George."
George Bush Snr, speaking to the President of Enron, January 1997
Associated Press, 16 Dec 2002

"The war on terrorism is a political myth propagated by the US and British governments, and we should not be manipulated by fear into believing or supporting them in this."
Remarks by Dr Jeff Sluka, Terrorism Expert, Massey University, New Zealand following the Bali bombing
Manatawu Evening Standard, 15 October 2002

Hot
What 'War-Against-Terrorism'?
Selective Support For Islamic Terrorism
As A Tool Of US and UK Foreign and Economic Policy

Majority of global hydrocarbon reserves critical to backward-looking
US and UK energy policy lie in the Islamic world

Enflaming conflict in those regions allows the world's only superpower
to intervene and secure control of reserves

FBI officers consistently obstructed by US Government in pursuit of terrorists
as British Government provides funds to al-Qaeda and turns blind eye to Sept 11 suspects

Click Here

"Growing demand for oil [in the US] will drive petroleum imports to 68 per cent of demand by 2025, against 55 per cent last year, said the EIA."
Energy imports to US 'will rise'
Financial Times, 21 November 2002

"As the head of Britain's intelligence services, Tony Blair now has a simple - and honourable - choice. To expose the truth."
Don't shoot the messenger
David Shayler, London Observer, 27 August 2000

"With a possible US-led war looming against Iraq, street-level Arab animosity towards the West is likely to increase. Al-Qaeda will not be short of volunteers for future missions...... for every member captured, more seem to join the movement."
Al-Qaeda: War fought in the shadows
BBC Online, 17 Dec 2002

"What we're inviting is World War Three. In the Middle East. It's too late to invade Iraq a second time.... A land war or a massive air war, against an Arab country is going to cause several governments in the Middle East to fall. Among them Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and possibly Egypt."
Bob Baer, Former CIA Officer
BBC Panorama, The Case Against War, 8 Dec 2002

"....only one leader has weapons of mass destruction and plans to use them. His name is George W Bush and it is he who must be stopped. What he plans to do against Iraq will not save lives or make peace. It will destabilise the world and threaten thousands, possibly millions.... It is true that weapons of mass destruction should not be allowed in the wrong hands. But they are. They are in President Bush's. That is the greatest threat facing the world."
BUSH'S RACE TO WAR PUTS WORLD AT RISK
The Mirror, 20 Dec 2002

"The Pentagon has secretly built a germ factory capable of producing enough deadly bacteria to kill millions of people, it was revealed yesterday. The project is one of a number of covert biological initiatives pursued by the United States over recent years. One proposal awaiting final approval is to manufacture a more potent version of anthrax using genetically engineered biological agents. Last night, Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, confirmed that the Administration planned to proceed with these tests.... Yesterday’s disclosure was seen as one reason why Mr Bush had also refused to sign up to a draft agreement strengthening the 29-year-old convention on biological weapons, even though it had been ratified by 140 other countries."
Secret US germ tests threat to treaty
London Times, September 5, 2001

"A coalition of Canadian peace groups today announced their intention to send an international team of volunteer weapons inspectors into the United States later this winter. The coalition, Rooting Out Evil, are recruiting inspectors through their newly launched website, www.rootingoutevil.org. 'Our action has been inspired by none other than George W. Bush,' said Christy Ferguson, a spokesperson for the group. The Bush administration has repeatedly declared that the most dangerous rogue nations are those that:
1) have massive stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons;
2) ignore due process at the United Nations;
3) refuse to sign and honour international treaties; and
4) have come to power through illegitimate means."
Press statement, Rooting Out Evil

For information: David Langille or Christy Ferguson info@rootingoutevil.org Saskatchewan, Canada Phone (306) 664-6071
The above initiative begins Jan 2003 - visit the web site and sign up to become a weapons inspector in the US

"Donald Rumsfeld, US Defence Secretary, visited Saddam Hussein to boost Iraqi relations when the country was regularly using chemical weapons against Iran in defiance of international conventions, a US newspaper reported today. The United States vowed to do 'whatever was necessary' to help Saddam during Iraq's war with Iran, including allowing him to develop chemical and biological weapons, the Washington Post said it had discovered.... A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee found that dozens of biological agents were later shipped to Iraq under licence from the US Commerce Department. They included strains of anthrax, which the Pentagon later identified as a crucial component of the Iraqi biological warfare programme."
Rumsfeld 'courted Saddam during Iran war'
London Times, 30 December 2002

"Britain is supplying chemical warfare technology to 26 countries including Libya, Syria, Israel and Iran -- which was labelled part of the 'axis of evil' by the United States. A Sunday Herald investigation has revealed that the UK is allowing the export of the lethal chemicals, which are illegal under international law and controlled under the chemical weapons convention because they can be used in weapons of mass destruction."
UK sells chemical weapons to the world
Sunday Herald, 9 June 2002

"In an interview with the US magazine, Newsweek published on Wednesday, the former South African president repeated his call for President George Bush not to launch attacks on Iraq. He said that Mr Bush was trying to please the American arms and oil industries..... "
US threatens world peace, says Mandela
BBC Online, 11 September 2002

"George Bush's top security adviser last night admitted the US would attack Iraq even if UN inspectors fail to find weapons. Dr Richard Perle stunned MPs by insisting a 'clean bill of health' from UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix would not halt America's war machine."
Bush Aide: Inspections or Not, We'll Attack Iraq
Mirror, 21 Nov 2002

"The United States edited out more than 8000 crucial pages of Iraq's 11,800-page dossier on weapons, before passing on a sanitised version to the 10 non-permanent members of the United Nations security council. ... Although Powell called the Iraqi dossier a 'catalogue of recycled information and flagrant omissions', the non-permanent members of the security council will have no way of testing the US claims for themselves."
America tore out 8000 pages of Iraq dossier
Sunday Herald, 22 December 2002

" Many Europeans believe that the biggest danger to world peace at present is not Saddam but Washington’s wilful exaggeration of his capability and intentions."
The Bush White House is at war - with itself
London Times, 22 November 2002

"The issue of no-fly zones [over Iraq] was not raised [at the UN] and therefore not debated: not a word. They offer no legitimacy to countries sending their aircraft to attack Iraq. They are illegal."
Dr. Boutros-Ghali, former Secretary General of the United Nations
Sunday Herald, 1 September 2002

Terrorist reprisals are all but certain now that the U.S. has launched its military campaign to 'eradicate' terrorism. For this reason, a proven solution to terrorism is especially urgent. Please follow the link below, read carefully, and act decisively. There is no other effective defence against terrorism.

For Global Country Of World Peace Latest News

Maharishi’s Weekly Global News Conference Each Wednesday
11:00 a.m. (US Eastern Time)
10:00 a.m. U.S. Central time
17:00 hours (Central Europe Time)

Connection Information for Media: www.mou.org/media/index.html

Connect live via teleconference: (USA) +1-512-305-4600
and then enter the code 55689, followed by the # key.

To ask Maharishi questions: Please email your questions during the
press conference to WorldPeace@Maharishi.Net or telephone (USA) +1-641-470-1344

To View Text Summaries of Previous Press Conferences
click here

To Watch Video Replays of Previous Press Conferences
click here

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on Larry King Show - click here

'MAHARISHI'S MEDICAL RESEARCH GAINS RESPECT'
Des Moines Register, Health Front Page, 19 Aug 2002
Second Article Same Edition - Education - click here

WORLD PEACE RAAM BONDS
National Post, Canada, 31 Aug, 2002

Sharon Byrne, KCSB Radio Santa Barbara, CA
"On September 11, 2002, the Maharishi held a press conference via satellite broadcast to spread his message .....
Maharishi considers President Bush a 'rash man', in response to one reporter from AP [Associated Press],
who questioned how this approach was different from what is already being done by governments. Maharishi said,
'Imagination and wishful thinking will never do anything, Associated or disintegrated press, however it may be.
Wishful thinking belongs to this rash man, the president of the USA. Tell him that wishful thinking is useless. Practical
steps is what I am talking about to create a peaceful world. Your president thinks he can be a savior of the world
by destroying the world."

MAHARISHI DECLARES THAT HIS GLOBAL PEACE PLAN
WILL CREATE 'A MORE POSITIVE, HARMONIOUS WORLD
WITHIN SIX TO NINE MONTHS'
Global Country of World Peace Press Release 19 Sept 2002

WHAT IS
THE "GLOBAL COUNTRY OF WORLD PEACE"?
click here