S T A R T   H E R E

To understand how the September 11th bombings are crimes against humanity and not an act of war, start with the following six works. Beyond this, see an additional list of useful materials.

1. Introduction To   C R I M E S    A G A I N S T    H U M A N I T Y:
   We Are Not At War
   The 9/11 bombings are Crimes Against Humanity
   by David T. Ratcliffe, May 2003
   

   But we are not at war. The 9/11 bombings were a crime against humanity mass murder of civilians. The U.N. Security Council rejected Bush II's bid to label the bombings an "armed attack" by one state against another state. The resolution that was passed denominated these events as "terrorist attacks." As international law professor Francis Boyle points out, "there is a magnitude of difference between an armed attack by one state against another state, which is an act of war, and a terrorist attack, which is not. . . . terrorists are dealt with as criminals. Terrorists are not treated like nation states. Terrorists are dealt with by means of international and domestic law enforcement. Terrorists are not given the dignity of special status under international law and practice."

   But elevating the dignity of terrorist individuals to reside on a par with the authority of nation-states is precisely what Bush II is doing. The claim that "we are are war" provides the underlying justification for the USA PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Act, and the violation and destruction of the foundations of American Constitutional liberties as well as the abrogation of the United States' participation as an equal member in the family of nations. Regressing to the barbaric might-makes-right "law of the jungle" promises the abrogation of an entire species' evolutionary history that seeks to honor and serves life's needs. There is much to be done to challenge and dispell the bewitchment that "we are at war."

   
   
   
2. Summary of Research/References on the 11 September 2001
   World Trade Center and Pentagon Bombings
   by David T. Ratcliffe, 9/11/03
   
   
   
   
3. Perversions of Justice by Ward Churchill,
   talking on the release of his new book, 2/22/03,
   

   Having been conditioned your entire lives, the way we are all conditioned our entire lives, to receive sound-bite answers to questions we have never had the critical ability to form in our minds, forecloses our ability to interrogate reality and draw conclusions from it. That is the function of the media. That is the function of the educational system you understand. It's not to teach you to think critically, which is educational in value. It's to teach you what to think. That's indoctrination.

   That's a rather different thing, to be indoctrinated than to be educated. We have this problem here in this population called "ignorance." And some of this population actually is. But when you say the word "ignorant" it's supposed to mean you didn't have the information: "I didn't know about it. I was ignorant of it." No, that's to be uninformed. And truly, there are a lot of people uninformed about a lot of things here. Uninformed is one thing. Ignorance is another.

   We've got an ignorant leadership. We've got an ignorant intelligentsia. Ignorant means to have the information right there in front of you and ignore it. To draw conclusions in the face of the evidence; to pretend that the evidence does not exist -- clear evidence of genocide and war crimes -- to pretend it's something else. That's ignorance. That's close to being a synonym for duplicity. That is something very different than being uninformed. You have an obligation to become informed. Once informed, a person has an obligation to act upon the information, not to become an ignorant individual as a result. . . .

   At Nuremberg it was said that there was a complicity on the part of the German citizenry. The Germans, as a whole, as a group, were deemed guilty of what was done. . . . Their government had set itself on a track that it felt it did not have to be bound by. It rejected the rule of law. The citizenry, at that point, incurred not only a right but an obligation to do whatever it was that was necessary to ensure that their government did comply with the rule of law. That was their obligation. That's the enforcement mechanism.

   That's the "prevention" for international warfare: that the citizenry of each country do whatever it has to, as Malcolm X would have put it, by any means necessary, to ensure that their governments do not violate the rule of law in a manner that leads to the kinds of results that were observable in Europe during the Second World War. Or have been observable at every step in the course of U.S. history. . . .

   [You] do what's necessary. The outlaw regime that is perpetrating the crime will ultimately make the determination of what is necessary by the nature of its resistance. How it resists will define for you. You don't define for it.

   You are not going to morally persuade a criminal state structure, bent upon perpetrating genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, to do the right thing. You don't speak truth to power. Power is not listening. Power knows better than you. You don't speak truth to power. You speak truth, in the teeth of power. You speak truth to people.

   
   
   
4. George Bush, Jr., September 11th and the Rule of Law
   from The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, by Francis Boyle, 2/1/02
   

   The Powell/Blair White Paper fell into that hallowed tradition of a “White Paper” based upon insinuation, allegation, rumors, propaganda, lies, half-truths, etc. Even unnamed British government officials on an off-the-record basis admitted that the case against bin Laden and Al Qaeda would not stand up in court. As a matter of fact, the Blair/Powell White Paper was widely derided in the British news media. There was nothing there. . . .

   So let us now turn to the law. Immediately after the 11 September 2001 attacks President Bush's first public statement characterized these terrible attacks as an act of terrorism. Under United States domestic law there is a definition of terrorism, which clearly qualifies them as such. To be sure, under international law and practice there is no generally accepted definition of terrorism . . .

   What happened? It appears that President Bush consulted with Secretary Powell and all of a sudden they changed the rhetoric and characterization of these terrible attacks. They now called them an act of war -- though clearly this was not an act of war, which international law and practice define as a military attack by one nation state upon another nation state.

   There are enormous differences and consequences, however, in how you treat an act of terrorism compared to how you treat an act of war. This nation and others have dealt with acts of terrorism before. Normally acts of terrorism are dealt with as a matter of international and domestic law enforcement -- which is, in my opinion, precisely how these terrible attacks should have been dealt with -- not as an act of war.

   Indeed there is a treaty directly on point to which both the United States and Afghanistan are party: the 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, the so-called Montreal Sabotage Convention. Article 1(I)(b) thereof criminalizes the destruction of civilian aircraft while in service. It has an entire legal regime specifically designed to deal with this type of situation and all issues related to it, including reference to the International Court of Justice to resolve any disputes that could not be settled by negotiations between the United States and Afghanistan or other contracting parties. The Bush Jr. administration simply ignored the Montreal Sabotage Convention completely, as well as the 12 or so multilateral conventions already on the books that deal with various components and aspects of what people generally call international terrorism, many of which could have been used and relied upon to handle this matter in a lawful, effective, and peaceful manner.

   
   
   
5. The Enemy Within, by Gore Vidal, 10/27/02
   

   We have only outdone the Romans in turning metaphors such as the war on terrorism, or poverty, or Aids into actual wars on targets we appear, often, to pick at random in order to maintain turbulence in foreign lands. . . . The media, never much good at analysis, are more and more breathless and incoherent. On CNN, even the stolid Jim Clancy started to hyperventilate when an Indian academic tried to explain how Iraq was once our ally and `friend' in its war against our Satanic enemy Iran. `None of that conspiracy stuff,' snuffed Clancy. Apparently, `conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.

   
   
   
6. Broadening Our Perspectives of 11 September 2001
   by David T. Ratcliffe, September 2002

   The intention to limit and control the investigation of the historically unprecedented bombings on United States soil is entirely consistent with the misrepresentations and obfuscations fomented and directed by Bush II. Historian Robert Conot wrote about the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials in his book Justice at Nuremberg. His assessment of Hitler's understanding and use of the "big lie" is timeless in its relevance. How power can corrupt and how unaccountable power can pervert a free and open society, is the paramount issue we must address while there is time to exercise any of the constitutional rights we claim are still ours.

   "Hitler's dictum that `the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people . . . more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one' has once more come into vogue.

   "The most effective means to combat such distortions is to make the facts accessible, and, with them, expose the statements for what they are. At Nuremberg, General Telford Taylor, the prosecutor of more war criminals than any other man, said: `We cannot here make history over again. But we can see that it is written true.'" [123]

   Today, making the facts about 9-11 accessible to all our human family is how we can reclaim our world and renew our hope for ourselves and each other. The misrepresentations, omissions, and deceptions described [in Broadening Our Perspectives of 11 September 2001] that have defined the Bush II agenda since 9-11 occurred, are summarized in the following list.

   • The 9-11 bombings were a crime against humanity of mass murder of civilians. Bush II intentionally chose to misrepresent these crimes as an act of war, rejecting legal remedies, and pursuing wars that they claim may never end, at least not in our lifetime.
     
     
   • The evidence, as presented to the world, claiming Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9-11 bombings would not stand up in a court of law.
     
     
   • The real reason Bush II is sabotaging the International Criminal Court is that senior officials fear prosecution for their criminal conspiracy to conduct a war of aggression.
     
     
   • The 1/8/02 Bush II Nuclear Posture Review, ordering the Pentagon to draw up war plans for the first-use of nuclear weapons, constitutes a Nuremberg Crime against Peace by "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances."
     
     
   • Since 1991, a World Trade Center's worth of Iraqi children have died every month as a direct result of U.S. policies. Bush II only mentions the loss of American lives on the single day of 9-11-01.
     
     
   • The United States has rejected a legally-binding system of United Nations inspections of suspected U.S. biological weapons facilities while at the same time accusing other countries -- including Iraq -- of developing biological weapons. Simultaneously, the United States armed forces, in direct violation of the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, is actively pushing for offensive biological weapons development, despite the fact such activity is illegal and subject to federal criminal and civil penalties.
     
     
   • The October 2001 "USA PATRIOT Act" is turning the U.S. into a permanent police state. It vastly expands the structures of government secrecy and surveillance, utterly relinquishes any semblance of due process, categorically violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments, and unacceptably mixes aspects of criminal investigations with aspects of immigration and foreign intelligence laws, while it simultaneously extinguishes the accountability of elected and non-elected government officials.
     
     
   • The creation of the Department of Homeland Security, representing the biggest government reorganization since the establishment of the Department of Defense in the 1940s, will further erode if not overturn the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which has kept the U.S. military out of local law enforcement for more than a century.
     
     
   • Attorney General Ashcroft, the leading law enforcement officer of the land, is mounting a series of assaults on the United States Bill of Rights that deny a host of constitutional liberties to U.S. citizens, as well as preparation on many fronts for the imposition of martial law and the creation of internment camps for enemy citizens of Ashcroft's choosing.
     
     
   • Bush II's war on terrorism is founded on political deceptions and deceits directed at the civilian population of the United States. These include omissions that supposed enemies like Al Qaeda are categorized as U.S. intelligence assets and that the Islamic Brigades are a creation of the Central Intelligence Agency.
     
     
   • A broad range of data and sources indicate the United States has planned for war in Asia long before 9/11. The beneficiaries and proponents of such military campaigns include U.S. oil corporations, the interests of which are well-represented in Bush II.
     
     
   • Given all indications from the four commercial airliner's timeline sequences on 9-11, there was a stand down of defensive U.S. Air Force response. United States military and/or civilian incompetence or complicity is the only rational explanation for this situation.
     
     
   • Bush Jr. and Cheney have expressly asked Senate Majority Leader Daschle to limit any congressional investigation into 9-11 because, as Cheney said, "a review of what happened on September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism."

4 March 2004: Call For Bush, Rumsfeld, & Meyers To Testify Publicly Under Oath About Their Actions On 11 Sept 2001 19  October  2003 A N N O U N C I N G   T H E   9 / 1 1   Q U E S T I O N S   M E E T U P Coming to a town near you on the third Thursday of each month. www.meetup.com has finally accepted the 9/11 truth community into the fold and thus presents us with a marvelous tool for spontaneous propagation and grassroots organizing. A 9/11 Meetup Resources list is available at: http://nancho.net/911CW/MUinfo1.html. www.meetup.com is a free online service helping people with special interests to meet up once a month in towns and cities across the country. This allows previously virtual communities to swiftly convert their ideas into on-the-ground action groups and constituencies, and is an ideal tool for amplifying 9/11 awareness and activities. How To Help (Easily and A Lot) : Simplest: Go to 9-11questions.meetup.com and sign in as a member. This will not obligate you in any way, but will help build topic profile and wider interest in the issue. More Involved: Help locate a meeting place in your area. The trick is to find roomy, relatively quiet venues where participants can talk freely and see key 9/11 videos to kick off discussion and brainstorming on meaningful ways to act. More Committed: Sign up as a meetup host (which means you greet new participants, help them feel comfortable, and facilitate making the evening run smoothly), and/or help locate good handouts and videos to present. Helpful Short Documentaries: Aftermath: Unanswered Questions From 911 by the Sundance Award winning Guerrilla News Network The Great Deception - The War on Terrorism - an alternative view by Barry Zwicker; Order the video for $30 Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death, by Scottish journalist Jamie Doran and Afghan journalist Najibullah Quraishi September 10, 2001, Uno Nunca Muere La Vispera by Monika Bravo