Are we at war – or not?

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.

The desecration has begun. A ground-breaking ceremony was held at the Shanksville crash site on Saturday. Bulldozers will start reshaping the land this week. Never mind that the only rule for the Flight 93 memorial’s design competition was that the landscape had to be left as it was. In order to complete the full arc of the Crescent of Embrace (now called a broken circle, but still a giant Islamic-shaped crescent), an earthen causeway will have to be built across the wetlands that lie about 50 vertical feet below the crash site.

A contractor posted recently about his decision to turn down work on the memorial, despite economic hard times. Our friend Jeff just could not stomach the idea of helping to build a tribute to the enemy, a sentiment that is easy to understand and much appreciated. To anyone else who might find themselves in this situation, just be aware that there are other options. Someone is going to do the work, and if the pay is lucrative, it could be better for our cause to have that money go to someone who is on our side.

Blogburst author Alec Rawls has succeeded in driving quite a bit of Western Pennsylvania news coverage through the purchase of a half-dozen half-page full-color ads in the local Somerset paper. If anybody wants to fund another, Alec will gladly put the ad together. Call it anti-dhimmi jiu-jitsu. We can use the Park Service’s own money against them.

If we don’t succeed, then we have to live with knowing that we helped to build an abomination. There is no simple answer.

On the subject of worthy causes, long-time blogburst participant Curt at the excellent Flopping Aces blog is helping to orchestrate fundraising for Project Valour-IT, which helps provide voice-controlled computers and other technology to Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand wounds and other severe injuries.

Soldiers Angels, which hosts Valour-IT, is also fundraising for the victims of the jihad attack on Fort Hood.

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.

1. If all the world hated America because of George W Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq….then why was America attacked on Sept 11, 2001; 2yrs before that invasion?
2. Why has Al Queda been trying to exterminate every American for the past 17yrs?
3. Did you want Bush to fail in Iraq, or did you want America to succeed?
4. Given that Osama left Afghanistan in 2001, and Al Queda was largely destroyed in Afghanistan in 2002, how did the Bush Administration “take its eye off the ball [Afghanistan] by invading Iraq” in 2003?
5. What caused the great recession of 2007?
6. How have Democrats ensured that we don’t have another $13 TRILLION dollar Great Recession?
7. If FOX, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, etc are examples of right wing propaganda…then what is an example of left wing propaganda?
8. If Republicans lie, and all politicians are liars, then what are some lies told by Democrats?
9. Since President Obama’s Israel/Palestine talks have failed, and he’s been unable to stop Iran’s nuclear program, and since he’s completely clueless on what to do in Afghanistan…what is PLAN B for keeping Israel from bombing Iran and starting a regional-possibly a world war?
10. Obama’s a quarter of the way done with his presidency. What will history record as his greatest accomplishment?

btw, I could come up with more, but these were my top 10. Anyone who thinks they have one that deserves being on the list, please, please, please feel free to suggest it. I probably won’t add it out of sheer laziness, but I think we’d all love to see em.

NYTimes:

WASHINGTON — As Congress prepares to consider extending crucial provisions of the USA Patriot Act, civil liberties groups and some Democratic lawmakers are gearing up to press for sweeping changes to surveillance laws.

Both the House and the Senate are set to hold their first committee hearings this week on whether to reauthorize three sections of the Patriot Act that expire at the end of this year. The provisions expanded the power of the F.B.I. to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls in the course of a counterterrorism investigation.

Is this really an “expansion” of power? Or a matter of updating existing powers in order for the F.B.I. to effectively do its job of protecting American lives in wake of 21st century technological advancements?

Laying down a marker ahead of those hearings, a group of senators who support greater privacy protections filed a bill on Thursday that would impose new safeguards on the Patriot Act while tightening restrictions on other surveillance policies. The measure is co-sponsored by nine Democrats and an independent.

The Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE- ain’t that cute?) Act is being introduced by U.S. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jon Tester (D-MT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT- who might as well carry a “D” by his name).

“Every single member of Congress wants to give our law enforcement and intelligence officials the tools they need to keep Americans safe,” Mr. Feingold said in a statement when filing the bill. “But with the Patriot Act up for reauthorization, we should take this opportunity to fix the flaws in our surveillance laws once and for all.”

Really?! Feingold (and every single member of Congress) wants to give our FBI and CIA the tools they need to keep Americans safe? Is that what he wanted in Oct. 2001 when he alone opposed the Patriot Act? If he had a chance to vote against the entire Patriot Act today, would he do so? 8 years following the events of 9/11, and we have not experienced another such terror attack. How has the Patriot Act not contributed to that success?

One of the witnesses Democrats have invited to testify at both hearings is Suzanne E. Spaulding, who has worked for lawmakers of both parties as a former top staffer on the House and Senate Intelligence committees.

I love when it’s always pointed out that she’s “worked for lawmakers of both parties”, as if that gives her credentials of being down the middle/bipartisan. But on this issue, she has always aligned herself against the Bush Administration on the Patriot Act, FISA, NSA surveillance program.

Mrs. Spaulding said she would urge Congress to tighten restrictions on when the F.B.I. could use the Patriot Act powers.

The rapid build-up of domestic intelligence authorities after the Sept. 11 attacks, she said, had overlooked “important safeguards,” which has resulted “in a greater likelihood at a minimum of the government mistakenly intruding into the privacy of innocent Americans, and at worst having a greater capability of abusing these authorities.”

Still, she acknowledged, the public record contains scant evidence that the F.B.I. has abused its powers under the three expiring Patriot Act sections.

Yet Spaulding and others of her mindset continue to fear-monger a characterization of “abuses”, “spying on AMERICANS (not terrorists)”, “civil rights intrusion”. That’s how they define this.

Republicans invited Kenneth L. Wainstein, a former assistant attorney general for national security for the Bush administration, to testify at both Patriot Act hearings.

“We have to be careful not to limit these tools to the point that they are no longer useful in fast-moving threat investigations,” Mr. Wainstein said. “There is an important place for oversight of national security tools, and that oversight is being exercised by Congress and by the federal judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.”

The first such provision allows investigators to get “roving wiretap” court orders authorizing them to follow a target who switches phone numbers or phone companies, rather than having to apply for a new warrant each time.

From 2004 to 2009, the Federal Bureau of Investigation applied for such an order about 140 times, Robert S. Mueller, the F.B.I. director, said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week.

The second such provision allows the F.B.I. to get a court order to seize “any tangible things” deemed relevant to a terrorism investigation — like a business’s customer records, a diary or a computer.

From 2004 to 2009, the bureau used that authority more than 250 times, Mr. Mueller said.

The final provision set to expire is called the “lone wolf” provision. It allows the F.B.I. to get a court order to wiretap a terrorism suspect who is not connected to any foreign terrorist group or foreign government.

Mr. Mueller said this authority had never been used, but the bureau still wanted Congress to extend it.

I wonder if Dennis Kucinich sees that last fact as a reason for scrapping it. 5 years after the enactment of the Patriot Act, the number of searches conducted at libraries under the business records provision was just one, prompting Kucinich to say: “If they haven’t used it, they shouldn’t have any problems with our efforts to get it repealed.”

As Ron Kessler points out, “That was like saying that because a policeman had never used his gun, it should be taken away.” [pg 65, The Terrorist Watch]

Kucinich, btw, was on a FOX morning news show this weekend, crying foul over the timing of arrests made last week to foil a terror plot in NYC, in close proximity of the upcoming debate on the Patriot Act. That accusation is a bit akin to Nancy Pelosi’s smear of the CIA. However, who would engage in political timing and advocacy? Why, the national security-averse NYTimes in 2005:

Before yesterday’s vote, opponents of the legislation rallied around a front page article in Thursday’s New York Times that reported Mr. Bush had secretly lifted certain limits on spying inside the United States. After more than a year holding the story, the paper decided to run it on the day of the Patriot Act vote.

The rhetoric of the Senators who are introducing the JUSTICE Act is one of striking balance between giving law enforcement and intell officials the tools they need on the one hand; while protecting American civil liberties on the other. But are Americans really in danger of being targeted for civil rights abuses and violations under the current Patriot Act?

Many of the proposals under discussion involve small wording shifts whose impact can be difficult to understand, in part because the statutes are extremely technical and some govern technology that is classified.

But in general, civil libertarians and some Democrats have called for changes that would require stronger evidence of meaningful links between a terrorism suspect and the person whom investigators are targeting.

In the same way, some are proposing to use any Patriot Act extension bill to tighten when the F.B.I. may use “national security letters” — administrative subpoenas that allow counterterrorism agents to seize business records without obtaining permission from a judge. Agents use the device tens of thousands of times each year.

The Patriot Act section that expanded the F.B.I.’s power to issue those letters is not expiring, but they have become particularly controversial because the Justice Department’s inspector general issued two reports finding that F.B.I. agents frequently misused the device to obtain bank, credit card and telephone records.

National security letters are similar to grand jury subpoenas, issued in international terrorism and espionage investigations.

Ronald Kessler, The Terrorist Watch, has some things to say regarding this matter, Pg 73-5:

As it turns out, the actual number of national security letters issued by the FBI each year averages around 50,000. While that number may sound like a lot, an investigation of one suspected terrorist may entail issuance of hundreds of national security letters to track down data from each bank account, credit card, cell phone, telephone, e-mail, and Internet account he may have used over time.

~~~

In a later audit, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found minor deficiencies associated with 22 of the 293 national security letters he examined from 2003 to 2005. In some cases, the letters were issued after the authorized investigation period, or an agent had accidentally transposed the digits in a telephone number of a person under investigation.

In about half the cases, the problems were not the fault of the FBI: According to Fine’s report, recipients of the letters sometimes turned over more information than requested or provided information about the wrong phone number. These problems never should have been lumped in with FBI violations.

Mueller brought that up with Fine, who insisted he was right to do so.

Mueller says the reason the FBI did not keep proper track of requests for national security letters is that no separate system had been set up to keep track of them.

~~~

By the time the report came out, Mueller had already taken twelve steps to correct the problems,

~~~

Fine specifically found that the FBI had not intentionally violated any rules. He determined that, with the exception of situations where the recipient made an error, the FBI in most cases had obtained information to which it was, in fact, entitled. He noted the tremendous workload of FBI agents trying to stop the next attack. And he concluded that NSLs have contributed significantly to the FBI’s counterterrorism efforts.

The news accounts either ignored or downplayed these findings. Instead, they played up the story as a massive intrusion into people’s personal lives, suggesting NSLs had something to do with monitoring calls rather than simply obtaining subscriber information associated with telephone numbers and e-mail addresses or obtaining financial records.

The F.B.I and the C.I.A. are not interested in “spying” upon ordinary Americans. They are interested in being able to do their jobs and to do them well, which involves protecting their loved ones and ordinary Americans.

Whose rights were being violated more, those whose phones were tapped by court order or those who died in the 9/11 attacks?
- Ron Kessler, The Terrorist Watch, pg 64

JUSTICE Act 2009 fact sheet:

The Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act would reform the USA PATRIOT Act, the FISA Amendments Act and other surveillance authorities to protect the constitutional rights of Americans while ensuring the government has the powers it needs to fight terrorism and collect intelligence.

Title I – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Records

Sections 101-106 – National Security Letters

The bill rewrites the National Security Letter (NSL) statutes to ensure the FBI can obtain basic information without a court order, but also adds reasonable safeguards to ensure NSLs are only used to obtain records of people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage, and to provide meaningful, constitutionally sound judicial review of NSLs and associated gag orders.

Section 107 – Section 215 Orders

The bill would reauthorize the use of Section 215 business records orders under FISA, but with additional checks and balances to ensure these orders are only used to obtain records of people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage, and to provide meaningful, constitutionally sound judicial review of Section 215 orders and associated gag orders.

Title II – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Homes

Section 201 – “Sneak & Peek” Searches

The bill would retain the Patriot Act’s authorization of “sneak and peek” criminal searches but eliminate the overbroad catch-all provision that allows these secret searches in virtually any criminal case. It would shorten the presumptive time limits for notification, and create a statutory exclusionary rule.

Title III – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Communications

Section 301 – FISA Roving Wiretaps

The bill would reauthorize roving FISA wiretaps, but eliminate the possibility of “John Doe” roving wiretaps that identify neither the person nor the phone to be wiretapped. It would require agents to ascertain the presence of the target of a roving wiretap before beginning surveillance.

Section 302 – Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices

The bill would retain the Patriot Act’s expansion of the FISA and criminal pen/trap authorities to cover electronic communications, but would allow pen/traps to be used only to obtain information about people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage. It would impose additional procedural safeguards to serve as a check on these authorities.

Section 303 – Telecommunications Immunity

The bill would repeal the retroactive immunity provision in the FISA Amendments Act.

Section 304 – Bulk Collection

The bill retains the new warrantless authorities in the FISA Amendments Act but would prevent the government from using that law to conduct “bulk collection” of the contents of communications, including all communications between the United States and the rest of the world.

Section 305 – Reverse Targeting

The bill would ensure that the overseas warrantless collection authorities of the FISA Amendments Act are not used as a pretext to target Americans in the U.S.

Section 306 – Use of Unlawfully Obtained Information

The bill would limit the government’s use of information about Americans obtained under FISA Amendments Act procedures that the FISA Court later determines to be unlawful, while giving the court flexibility to allow such information to be used in appropriate cases.

Section 307 – Protections for International Communications of Americans

The bill would amend the FISA Amendments Act to create safeguards for communications not related to terrorism that the government knows have one end in the United States.

Section 308 – Computer Trespass

The bill would guard against abuse of a warrantless surveillance authority in the Patriot Act that allows computer owners who are subject to denial of service attacks or other episodes of hacking to give the government permission to monitor trespassers on their systems.

Title IV – Improvements to Further Congressional and Judicial Oversight

Section 401 – FISA Public Reporting

The bill would require limited additional public reporting on the use of FISA.

Section 402 – Use of FISA Evidence

The bill would apply the Classified Information Procedures Act to the use of FISA evidence in criminal cases, and allow the use of protective orders and other security measures in civil cases, to ensure that courts have discretion to allow litigants access to information where appropriate while still protecting sensitive information.

Section 403 – Nationwide Court Orders

The bill would permit a recipient of a nationwide court order to challenge it either in the district where it was issued or in the district where the recipient is located.

Title V – Improvements to Further Effective, Focused Investigations

Section 501 – Domestic Terrorism

The Patriot Act’s overbroad definition of domestic terrorism could cover acts of civil disobedience by political organizations. The bill would limit the qualifying offenses for domestic terrorism to those that constitute a federal crime of terrorism.

Section 502 – Material Support

The bill would amend the overly broad criminal definition of material support for terrorism by specifying that a person must know or intend the support provided will be used for terrorist activity.

Tom Burnett Sr. and his wife Beverly did some 9/11 interviews the last couple of days, remembering their son Tom Jr., who was murdered by Islamic terrorists aboard Flight 93. Mr. Burnett has been trying for several years to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Islamic-shaped crescent on the Flight 93 crash site. In their interview with WSAU radio in Wisconsin, the Burnetts were joined half-way through the hour by Alec Rawls (the author of this blogburst post), who has written a book about the terrorist memorializing Crescent of Embrace design.

Mr. Burnett’s words are always heartfelt, yet marked by a constant scrupulousness. Emotion never carries him to utter a word beyond what he actually has grounds to assert. Highly recommended listening, perhaps especially for those who are better at judging people than facts. Let’s face it, show some people the Mecca-orientation of the giant crescent, and they just aren’t sure what they are looking at. Point out that the central feature of every mosque is a Mecca-direction indicator, and somehow the pieces don’t fall together in their brains:

What is that? Just a mysterious diagram to some.

Yet these folks can still be good judges of character. So judge the Burnetts. The WSAU interview begins with host Pat Snyder asking Mr. Burnett if America is doing enough as a nation to remember 9/11. Most of us, on being asked any question, will try to answer it, but Mr. Burnett immediately defers, and in the most polite way:

Well, I’m not a very good judge of that. We are tucked away here in the southeast corner of Minnesota…

But if he isn’t interested in passing judgment on how much America should do to remember 9/11, he is very concerned that we don’t honor the wrong people, and starts right in on the Flight 93 memorial (which Mr. Snyder puts off to later).

Both the Burnetts have a sophisticated understanding of American liberty. Talking about the generosity of Americans towards each other and the world, Beverly notes the change that has taken place in her lifetime, where assistance used to be all private, but now the government has gotten involved. She passes no explicit judgment on this development, but just notes what should remain constant (at 17:22):

I think about all the programs we have in the government. I come from a different generation, and my mother and father, and Tom’s, that we never really looked to the government all the time. We looked to our neighbors and churches and friends for things. But our government should be there to make sure we’re SAFE.

Instead, as Tom and Bev both note, our elites don’t even want to acknowledge that it was Muslim terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

It is these same elites who don’t want to acknowledge the Islamic symbol-shapes in the Flight 93 memorial. To witness this symbolism would be to tie Islam to 9/11, which to these people is some unconscionable bigotry, regardless of the truth. There is the rub. As Mr. Burnett put it (at 25:16):

All we want–Alec, and the thousands of Americans who back us–we want the truth. What happened? [How did we end up with an Islamist design?] And we want to honor the 40 people. I don’t want anything to do with the Islamic fanatics, anything at all.

Mr. and Mrs. Burnett are very thoughtful, careful, rational people. So who is it who is “too far out”? People like the Burnetts, who are skeptical that the architect of a memorial to Flight 93 could plant a giant crescent and star flag on the crash site by mistake? Or is it the people who somehow convince themselves that a crescent and star flag is just fine, so long as we can’t prove that it is intentional?

Actually, we CAN prove that the Islamic symbolism is intentional. Architect Paul Murdoch does not want history to be able to deny his achievement, so he included extensive redundant proofs of intent, such as the following. Murdoch says the crescent comes from the terror attacks breaking the circle (leaving only the giant Islamic-shaped crescent still standing, hmmm). Remove the parts of the crescent that stick out past the point where the flight path (coming down from the upper left) symbolically breaks the circle, and what symbolically remains standing is a giant Islamic-shaped crescent pointing EXACTLY at Mecca.

The full Crescent of Embrace points 1.8° north of Mecca ± 0.1°. Remove the parts of the Entry Portal walls that extend past the flight path at the upper crescent tip and the remaining “true” or thematic crescent points exactly at Mecca, ± 0.1°.

All the supposed redesign did was add an extra arc of trees that explicitly represents a broken off part of the circle, leaving Murdoch’s circle-breaking crescent-creating theme completely intact. The unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11, is still a precisely Mecca-oriented crescent, the centerpiece for the world’s largest mosque.

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.

Yet on this day mourning the loss of loved ones, revisiting the vunerability we felt, and even the anger that still lives in many of us, there is a spot of good news that may give you a small smile.

For the second year running, top jihad sites affiliated with Al Qaeda have mysteriously started exhibiting “technical problems” on the eve of 911, forcing the militants to shut down and lose their cyberspace presence.

A U.S.-based group monitoring militant Web sites said Friday that jihadist forums have been experiencing technical problems on the eve of Sept. 11, finally going offline a day before the 8th anniversary of the al-Qaida attack on the U.S.

The SITE Intelligence Group said the same thing happened last year, promoting consternation in militant circles.

“As happened last year … top jihadist forums affiliated with al-Qaida began experiencing technical problems, culminating in their ultimate closure on September 10, 2009,” the group said in a statement.

According to SITE, members of other jihadist forums expressed annoyance and “confusion” at the inability to access the Web sites and forums where they share updates and messages.

Couldn’t have happened to a lower class of humans…

I sure don’t know who the masked cyber crusader is, and no one is taking public credit for the second anniversary of jihad internet chaos. But this is one hacker to whom I sure would like to say, *thank you!*

I am proud to be a part of The 2996 Project, a blogosphere memorial to every single victim who died that terrible day. Bloggers were randomly linked to a 9-11 hero that they would then memorialize.

I am honored to present my memorial to Aram Iskendarian.

As I’ve spent the last few weeks doing research on this man I came to the realization that I wish I would have known him. He was a natural born leader with a calm exterior and a devoted father and husband to his family. A man I would have looked up to.

Aram was 41 the day he died. He was a vice president at Cantor Fitzgerald, where he headed the global risk management group. That day he would have been working on the 101st floor of building 1.

From the little I have been able to glean about his personal life I’ve learned he was a photobug and apparently always had a camera nearby to take pictures of his wife Sheri and their four children, Meryl, Kara, Alex and Jason.

When I first set out to learn about Aram the first webpage that I came across was this one, in which Sheri leaves a note for her husband:

I miss you more than words can I express. You were the love of my life. The children and I hope that you are at peace and did not suffer. Love Sheri

They were high school sweethearts:

The former Sheri Pearlman met her future husband when both were 15 and sophomores at Lynbrook High School. In a tribute delivered at Iskenderian’s funeral, Sheri’s brother, Ted Pearlman of Syosset, recalled his sister complaining about a boy at school who bothered her and pulled her hair.

“Little did we know,” Pearlman wrote, “that this would be the start of a great romance.”

They stayed together through graduation and through college, when he attended the University of Rochester and she was at Tufts in Massachusetts. They were married on Dec. 18, 1983.

Iskenderian was the “epitome of a modern day father” who changed diapers, put his children to bed and taught them about birds, his wife said. The couple has two daughters, Meryl, 11, and Kara, 8.

He gave blood 17 times and was planning to ride in a Sept. 23 bike-a-thon to raise money for a co-worker with multiple sclerosis. Last month, the family’s synagogue, Temple Beth Am in Merrick, held a blood drive in his honor.

This article appeared in the NYT’s about Aram:

“I remember my sister came home from school in 10th grade saying this boy was bothering her, pulling her hair all the time,” Ted Pearlman said. Since then, his sister Sheri and that boy, Aram Iskenderian, had been together, through high school, colleges that were hundreds of miles apart, 18 years of marriage, and times that were sometimes trying. Her family was Jewish, his was not, so there was friction at first. He stood by her through difficult times when she was trying to become a doctor.

“I think that his gentleness and calmness and support when my sister was going through medical school was the turning of the corner,” Mr. Pearlman said. “Through his actions he proved that true inner commitment and loyalty are far more important than anything else. How he stuck by my sister was all-important.”

Mr. Iskenderian, 41, was a vice president in global risk management at Cantor Fitzgerald and was famous for his renovations at home. He and his wife had two daughters and twin sons. “He’d be home every night on that 6 o’clock train,” the latest he would take, said Georgia Stavropoulos, a family friend. “He’d be home with his wife and children, to bathe the kids and put them to bed.”

Wherever he went he seemed to have an impact on people’s lives. Soon after I was given the honor of creating this memorial for Aram I received a few emails from some old college buddies of his such as this one from Saul Pedrera:

I just came across your site and saw your page about Aram Iskendarian. I hadn’t seen him since 1982 when we both graduated from the University of Rochester but always remembered him fondly. He was one of the nicest people I’ve ever met, with a calm and friendly manner that made him likeable and easy to talk to. I know that I speak for all of our classmates when I relay how genuinely nice Aram was.

And another heartfelt one from Kevin Carr:

I was a college buddy of Aram’s at the University of Rochester . We both majored in Optics and were lab partners. Aram asked me to be an usher in his wedding party. To this day, I often use the silver letter opener that I received as a gift from the groom. Aram was always a leader, it was his nature. I am not surprised that his career path led to becoming a Vice President at Cantor Fitzgerald, Unfortunately, this is what placed him in the WTC on 9/11/2001. If Aram survived the initial impact, I am sure that he spent his last moments trying to help others in his office. He could remain calm in the face of a crisis. I will always remember the good times we enjoyed together and the close friendship we shared, although many years ago.

A student carries the image of Aram Iskenderian ‘82, one of six University alumni who died September 11.

Much of the memorial messages left at the various websites for Aram all said pretty much the same thing. Very friendly and calm. He could stay calm through the toughest times. If he did indeed survive the initial impact of the planes then this is more then likely how he died. He would have been trying to keep everyone calm and to get everyone out of the building I imagine.

No blog post could do justice in remembering anyones life, and mine is no different. But I hope this page will serve as a memorial for Aram’s family and friends to remember the life of a man who should not have died so young, but died a hero.

From my post, 3 years ago:

How many of you remember what it was like to be 3 years old? How many of you can remember what you did just 3 years ago? How many of you have projected 3 years into the future, thinking that 3 years was a long time away to be planning for, that far in advance? How many of you have ever imagined what it would be like if 3 years was the average life expectancy? How would you spend your time if 3 years was all that you had left to live? 4 years to graduate from high school…4 years is the norm to earn an undergraduate degree from college. What could 3 years give you? What could you give back to the world and to your country, in just 3 short years?

David Reed Gamboa-Brandhorst was born June 23, 1998. That same month, an enemy of the United States few Americans knew about, Osama bin Laden, was placed on the FBI’s most wanted list. 2 months later, on August 7th, the world saw simultaneous bomb attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. 224 were killed, including 12 U.S. citizens. Worst was yet to come…

Please read the rest of the post.

We owe it to ourselves as Americans- as patriots- to personalize the loss of our fellow citizens, then and now. They are our brothers and sisters; our fellow Americans, and fellow human beings.

The lessons of September 11th: Always remember, and never forget.

Related post:
My 9/11 Memorial Video(s)

At fifteen seconds after 9:41 a.m., on September 11, 2001, a photographer named Richard Drew took a picture of a man falling through the sky — falling through time as well as through space. The picture went all around the world, and then disappeared, as if we willed it away. One of the most famous photographs in human history became an unmarked grave, and the man buried inside its frame — the Falling Man — became the Unknown Soldier in a war whose end we have not yet seen. Richard Drew’s photograph is all we know of him, and yet all we know of him becomes a measure of what we know of ourselves. The picture is his cenotaph, and like the monuments dedicated to the memory of unknown soldiers everywhere, it asks that we look at it, and make one simple acknowledgment.

That we have known who the Falling Man is all along.

The story of this iconic photograph, and its’ subject are below the fold.

Do you remember this photograph? In the United States, people have taken pains to banish it from the record of September 11, 2001. The story behind it, though, and the search for the man pictured in it, are our most intimate connection to the horror of that day.

In the picture, he departs from this earth like an arrow. Although he has not chosen his fate, he appears to have, in his last instants of life, embraced it. If he were not falling, he might very well be flying. He appears relaxed, hurtling through the air. He appears comfortable in the grip of unimaginable motion. He does not appear intimidated by gravity’s divine suction or by what awaits him. His arms are by his side, only slightly outriggered. His left leg is bent at the knee, almost casually. His white shirt, or jacket, or frock, is billowing free of his black pants. His black high-tops are still on his feet.

Read the rest of the Esquire story.

It’s not a new phenomenon. Long ago it was said that the true story of a war can’t be told until the last of its veterans has passed away, and only a few months ago did the last World War One veteran go to his great reward. For decades after the Civil War (and some would argue even today) the debate raged on, and the healing of Southern Reconstruction didn’t really start culturally until the unity of the Spanish-American War turned foes into brothers-in-arms.

Conspiracy theories-often fueled by politics-still rage over the 911 attacks, the invasion of Iraq, whether or not Roosevelt deliberately allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to happen, whether or not the U.S. Navy knew the U.S.S. Maine had a boiler explosion and wasn’t sunk by a mine. People still think that the Lusitania was set on a suicide mission to get the United States into World War One. These myths will always remain, and it’s good that they do because they spark investigation and a search for understanding of these world changing events. The relationship between the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq is interesting in that both have a long list of conspiracy theories attacked to each, and yet the abstract, more indirect relationship between the two events is dismissed out of hand. To that end, even if one believes the relationship between Iraq War and 911 attacks is a conspiracy theory, it’s worthwhile to examine if for no other reason than harvesting a better understanding.

Opponents of President Bush and of the invasion of Iraq often claim, “Iraq did not attack the United States on Sept 11, 2001,” but Germany, Italy, and the rest of the Axis didn’t attack Pearl Harbor either and yet the U.S. went to war with them as well as the Japanese. Why? Because those Axis powers had an alliance, an agreement to help the Japanese. It was a paper only agreement (history shows us that there were no battles with uber-racist NAZI S.S. troops fighting alongside Japanese troops), but it was an agreement none-the-less. Additionally, the Axis nations declared war on the United States after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Similarly, we know from Clinton Administration claims, from captured documents, from pre-war and post-war intelligence that Saddam’s intelligence agencies had relationships with various groups in the Al Queda terrorist network of groups. We know from the 1998 Clinton Administration indictment of Osama Bin Laden that the two had reached an agreement to get WMD into the hands of the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

We also know from 1990-2003 Saddam’s government considered itself at war with the United States and from 1992-today Osama Bin Laden’s Al Queda network of terrorist groups has been at war with the United States.

Why?

Why did Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda go to war with the United States in 1992? According to the 911 Commission’s final report, the reason that the Al Queda network went to war with the United States, and ultimately the reason for the September 11, 2001 attacks was 4 different things (pg48-49)

He [Osama Bin Laden] inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites.
He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and
he protested U.S. support of Israel.

Why were American forces in Saudi Arabia from 1992-2001? They were there for one reason: to enforce no-fly-zones over Iraq which were there to protect Iraqis from Saddam. If the United States had removed Saddam in 1991, then the U.S. forces wouldn’t have been needed in Saudi Arabia, and Osama Bin Laden’s first casus belli wouldn’t exist.

Why was Osama concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people? He was concerned-like many around the globe-because the U.S. led sanctions were starving tens of millions of people as a failed means of influencing Saddam. Again, had the United States removed Saddam in 1991, Osama Bin Laden’s second casus belli against the United States-his second reason for the 911 attacks-wouldn’t have existed.

Why was Osama Bin Laden so concerned about the United States support for Israel in the 1992-2001 period when Al Queda went to war with the United States? What was unique about that period in America’s support for Israel? In much of the Arab World (and in anti-Semitic circles around the world as well), America’s continued pressure on Saddam Hussein’s regime was viewed as an American shield for Israel; as the United States protecting Israel from Saddam and other aggressive Arab regimes.

The historical lesson and inescapable fact is that if the United States had chosen to remove Saddam from power in 1991, OR if the United States had simply walked away from Iraq in 1991 and washed their hands of Saddam’s regime without trying to compel compliance with United Nations resolutions, then Saddam’s regime would have remained in power, BUT the reasons for Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda terrorist networks’ war on the United States simply would not exist; i.e. the reasons for the Sept 11, 2001 attacks wouldn’t have existed.

Would Osama Bin Laden and his network still have found other reasons to wage war on the United States? One cannot tell for certain, but it does seem that their nature and their destiny has been to fight superpowers, and with the United States as the sole superpower in the 1990’s, it seems more than likely other excuses for casus belli would have been claimed.

Would Saddam Hussein have still been a threat to the United States if he had been left in power in 1991, and if the United States didn’t pursue compliance with U.N. Resolutions? Absolutely. In 1992 U.N. inspectors found that Saddam’s regime had actually built a nuclear bomb, but lacked enriched uranium for it. From 1992-1995 U.N. inspectors found vast amounts of WMD. Saddam had invaded or attacked every single one of his neighbors during his reign, he’d used WMD in the past, had ordered them used against U.S. troops in the 1991 Gulf War (Iraq Survey Group Report, transcript of recording, vol II). Few reasonable leaders would argue that Saddam was not a threat, and no one would argue that a Saddam Hussein who still had ballistic missiles, WMD, and more in 1992 was not a regional or even global threat. Determined that he was a threat, Saddam either had to be removed in 1991 by the United States, in the 1991-2003 period by internal forces (multiple attempts at which all failed with increasing futlity), or by the United States in 2003.

The abstract, and more indirect relationship between the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq is simple: the war with Al Queda and their attacks on the United States (including the 911 attacks) were blowback, consequences, fragmentary effects of the 1991 invasion of Kuwait and Iraq.

The DIRECT relationship between the 911 attacks and Saddam’s regime is far more debated. To be clear, the hijackers were no more Iraqi than the pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor were German and Italian. However, the question of direct Iraqi ties to the 911 attacks go back to that very day when-as the attacks were happening-Iraq shot down an unarmed Predator drone over Iraq that was searching for WMD etc. On that day, after getting sparse, scattered, and chaotic information about the attacks-while they were happening, and while getting 2-3x as many false reports and rumors of attacks, members of the Bush Administration were not at all culpable or irresponsible for asking if Saddam’s regime was behind the attacks.

In fact, at the time it had become a common cultural expectation. During the 1990’s the Clinton Administration repeatedly claimed that Saddam’s regime and the Al Queda network worked together. Mass media reports of the time carried this theme fully and without question. It was even showing up in movies where characters would claim anything-even meteor showers on New York City were the result of Saddam (Armaggeddon ffwd to 1:40).

Unfortunately, on Sept 11, 2001 there was no way to tell if the attacks were directly or just indirectly related to the on-going American war against Saddam (a war that was so poorly reported that most Americans even today fail to realize it even happened, but conversely was so burned into the minds of the Arab Street at the time that it still conjures up bitter memories in the region).

The question of direct Iraqi involvement in the 911 attacks was investigated first by the Bush Administration, and they found no evidence to make a conclusion. Subsequent investigations by the CIA, FBI, the House and Senate intelligence committees, the entire intelligence community, the 911 Commission and more all ran into the same problem: there was no evidence. For political partisans opposed to President Bush and/or the invasion of Iraq that was enough to support their argument that the invasion was somehow not necessary. The conclusion they promoted-that there was “no evidence” of a direct involvement was but 1/3 of the truth. Another 1/3 was the reason that there was “no evidence’ was because almost none had been collected or analyzed, and the reason for that (almost always ignored by political opponents of the Iraq invasion) was that from December 1998-December 2002 the United States had not a single spy inside Iraq. For four years there was no evidence collected, and thus there was “no evidence.”

Most alarmingly, after 1998 and the exit of the U.N. inspectors, the CIA had no human intelligence sources inside Iraq who were collecting against the WMD target.
- Senator Pat Roberts 070904 SIC Release of WMD investigation report
Press Conference transcript

The last 1/3 is the most obvious, and the most deliberately ignored for political purposes: every single investigation that looked at the question of direct regime ties to the 911 attacks and/or the Al Queda network of terrorist groups ALWAYS pointed out that because so little evidence had been collected, the issue was to remain open-not closed or concluded.

After the invasion, innumerable direct ties between the Al Queda network of terrorist groups and Saddam’s regime have been uncovered. These ties are shown in captured and authenticated documents, in the interrogation of former regime leaders, and in the capture of Al Queda operatives. In fact, the relationship between the regime and the network was far far more involved than any relationship between Germany and Japan or Mussolini and Tojo.

Yet it remains a political issue more than a historical one today. six years after the second invasion of Iraq, eight years after the 911 attacks, 17 years after Osama and the Al Queda network declared war on the United States, and 18 years after the United States and Saddam’s regime went to war over Kuwait.

Perhaps, now that President Bush is gone, and there is no more need to use the invasion of Iraq as a draw issue for his opposition…perhaps now people can be mentally brave enough to recognize the undeniable blowback/more-indirect relationship between the Ignored War on Saddam’s regime (1991-2001) and the 911 attacks. There certainly is no more reason to deny this fact, and there’s no more reason to avoid a conclusive investigation into the depth of regime ties to the Al Queda network of terrorist groups.

The sounds of 9/11

Eight years ago, on a beautiful Tuesday morning in September I was in Savannah, Georgia on business.

As the parking garage elevator descended it stopped on one of the floors below. A gentleman who entered the elevator told us that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. He didn’t have any details, just basic information relayed to him by his wife who had called him on his cell phone.

My first thought was that it had to be some horrible accident. A sightseeing plane was my thought. The horrifying possibility that was eventually revealed as reality never entered my mind.

A little while later the unthinkable news of a second plane came in, again by cell phone.

That was the moment that I realized that our world had changed.

Then news of a third plane. And a fourth.

Through the remainder of the morning we hovered over our computers and our small television set watching, waiting, and wondering.

News reports of missing planes. What will be next?

Confusion. Emotion.

Death. Despair.

Smoke. Fire.

Screams. Tears.

Shock. Horror.

Papers swirling. People fleeing.

Sirens wailing.

Heroes rushing in.

When the first tower collapsed my mind couldn’t comprehend it. When the second one fell, the tears came.

Just before noon I went to pick up my children. Right there in the hallway of the school I gathered the three of them into my arms and hugged them. I wanted to shelter them. I didn’t want the innocence of their childhoods to be stolen away. I just wanted to cling to life as it was that morning when I dropped them off.

I cried. Again.

In literally the blink of an eye, everything was different. We became a nation at war, at first united, then, bitterly and decidedly divided. We became a nation of finger pointing and horrible accusations. The prayer vigils were replaced by protests. The unfurled flags of 9/12 were folded up and put away.

We have become a nation that seems to be loathe to remember what that morning, and the next day, and the following weeks and months were like. The video footage and pictures are not on television anymore as if relegating those things to the bottom bureau drawer will alter the reality of what we all experienced.

I have never been quite the same since that Tuesday morning. Perhaps, much like my children, I had something taken away from me. Perhaps the people who hijacked those planes that day have won a small victory through what they were able to take away from each of us but only if we let them.

I refused to allow them to win. I no longer approach life with the same happy-go-lucky I’ve got all the time in the world attitude that I did on the preceding Monday.

I now grasp each day with vigor, making the most of each and every moment. I strive to never pass up time with my wife or my children. Little things like swimming or fishing or playing frisbee or coloring or wrestling or curling up and reading a book with them are now things that I don’t put off until another time because, as September 11, 2001 taught me, we never know for sure if we’ll have another time.

I made a list of things that I want to experience and things that I want to accomplish. Every time I complete one I add another. Last week I took my first helicopter ride. That was replaced on the list by Shag lessons (my wife’s suggestion).

The people who left home that morning headed for work, or for the airport, or wherever life’s journey was taking them had no idea that they wouldn’t come home again. The things that they put off for another time are now incomplete for eternity.

As I have turned the pages of my desk calendar over these past eight years I was sure that the emotions of that day would have become more and more muted, eventually fading away to a distant memory.

I was wrong.

The feelings are just as raw now as they were. They reside just below the surface waiting to be stirred by the slightest thing. My eyes well up when I see the videos or hear the voices or view the pictures from that day.

Sometimes it seems like a lifetime ago. Sometimes, yesterday.

Let us honor their memories. Let us never forget.

September 11, 2001 is a day that Americans with red blood in their veins will never forget. Nor should we. It’s a reminder of what awful things can happen if we let down our guard in a world
where evil only waits for good men to grow weary of remaining vigilant. It’s also a day to reflect on the heroism and self sacrifice that brought out the best in so many of our citizens.

–Remember the heroes who went into the buildings at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to save lives. Remember the heroes on Flight 93 who saved hundreds or more lives by preventing another attack.

Father Mychal Judge “Father Mike” the “Fireman’s Friar” killed by falling debris at Ground Zero while delivering the last rites to a mortally wounded fireman.

–Remember a great city that will never be the same:

photograph by Mike’s America.

–Remember a President who in this moment was transformed into the leader we needed to guide us through the painful aftermath:

–Remember the children who lost fathers and mothers eight years ago:

Take a moment now and remember again, in sights, sounds, voices and video that awful day. This flash presentation is the best of any on the internet.

Mixed into the images from 9/11/2001, are related images from its aftermath: Iraq, Afghanistan, the War on Terror.

From 2008:

From 2007:

Now, how do I know that? Have I seen the speech? Have I spent the 3-day weekend listening to Churchill, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and re-reading the Gettysburg Address? Was I there were Herodocus debated with Namenicus on the floor of the Roman Senate? No, of course not, but the sheer magnitude and audacity of President Obama means that his speech can be nothing shy of a choir of angels. Thankfully, his one of the greatest orators in modern history, and easily the most inspiring teleprompter-reader of the 21st Century.

Think about it. Just two days before the anniversary of the 911 attacks, President Obama will address every American. The war in Afghanistan that the attacks set in motion is in trouble. Commanders in the field want more troops. Democrats, members of Obama’s own party who control Congress, say they will vote against more troops, and instead want an immediate, unilateral withdrawal, as well as an abandonment of our NATO allies and our Afghan allies. Obama’s Admin and the Pentagon have both seen that support for this troubled war is under 50% among the American people, and they worry about increased opposition to the war from….his own party? The Obama Admin and the Pentagon called for Americans to support the war in Afghanistan, and in response his own party demanded a retreat, and anti-war groups have scheduled protests for the G20 Summit in 2wks. Rather than take this moment in history, just 48hrs before the anniversary of the attacks, to try and build political and popular support for a war that is failing, Obama will talk about healthcare instead. Man, that’s bold. He somehow has calculated that the support from his own party, from the American people, and from the world will come because of nothing more than the eloquence of his address on healthcare.

This speech also comes after the worst Labor Day holiday ever. More Americans are unemployed now than at any time before on a Labor Day. The economy is still in the tank despite trillions of dollars in spending. The American people are furious at the out of control spending (as demonstrated by the Town Hall meetings and so-called Tea Parties and-more importantly-as shown in every poll. Independents and moderates from both parties are no longer supporting Obama and the Democrats because of this completely out of control spending; spending that is already 3x more than all the money ever spent by the Federal government COMBINED…..spending that almost 2yrs after the crisis began still has yet to have an effect on the average American. But, President Obama won’t be talking about the Great Recession. He’s calculated that his speech on healthcare will be so good, so full of awe that the independent swing voters and moderates from both parties will ignore the $2trillion accounting error from last week, the 10% of Americans who are unemployed (15-25% in many states), and the huge decline in both gross domestic product and tax revenues. President Obama thinks that his speech will be so inspiring that those Americans who are disheartened will come back, will support he and the Democratic Party even as they add MORE spending with yet another government program: healthcare. He feels he doesn’t need to address Congress and the nation about The Great Recession. That’s confidence. His speech must be fantastic.

Let’s not forget about Iran either. Iran’s been building nuclear bomb factories for the past two decades. No international pressure has ever even deterred them-not even direct talks with the Bush Administration in Baghdad. President Obama offered them an open hand, carrots, and diplomacy, and he set a deadline of September 24th (less than 2wks from now). Over the weekend Iran said that the Obama Admin was lying about nuclear WMD evidence, and that they were willing to have talks, but that the nuclear issue was not to be part of that. Israel has openly said that they’re just waiting for the United States to realize that diplomacy has failed, and then they’re going to bomb Iran. Iran has said if that happens, they’ll retaliate against Israel by shooting missiles over American forces in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, and that Iran’s terrorist allies/proxies will attack the United States. President Obama’s not going to talk about this threat of regional-even world war. Nope. President Obama has decided he doesn’t need to address Congress, the nation, and the world about this threat. His healthcare speech will be so good that the Iranians will stop their belligerence on their own, and they will be inspired towards peace by his healthcare speech in a way that a speech mentioning this very serious threat could never do.

Add to this the healthcare problem itself. Contrary to straw man rhetorical arguments most Americans want healthcare reform. C’mon, everyone has had to fight with an insurance company, rolled their eyes at bills, and we all fear the coverage as much as the disease or injury. However, 2/3’s of the American people do not want a single-payer, government option. The reasons vary, but they don’t want it. The far left extremists of Obama’s party say screw the will of the people, they want a government option, and eventually want a fully socialist healthcare system. 83 House Democrats have said they simply will not vote for any healthcare reform unless it has a government option and can be the first step towards a socialist system. Contrary to that 52 moderate House Democrats will not vote on any healthcare bill that does include a single-payer, government option. Oh, and another 23 House Democrats….yeah, they’re not happy with the healthcare reform bill in any event, so they’re already going to vote against it. Again, Obama’s coolness is astounding as he has somehow envisioned hat his speech tomorrow night will be so good, so moving, so perfect that the Democrats in the House will come together and form a healthcare plan that they can all agree on. (What about Republicans? Who cares-they’re not in power to even oppose let alone support a plan)

I for one can’t wait to see the President’s speech tomorrow night. He’s a great speaker. His task seems impossible, but surely a man doesn’t call a joint session of Congress, ask every major network to cancel their prime time programming to cover his speech, and ask the American people to view it without expecting it to accomplish something. Moreover, there is no something anymore. At this point…it’s all or nothing, and he’s probably not giving the speech for nothing. He’s going for it all.

This should be the greatest speech in the history of mankind.