- home - 911 Open Letters -



Honorable Madam Chair, Judiciary Committee, Montana House of Representatives



Statecraft, Secrecy, and Security

Then- U. S. President Bill Clinton With Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen


"A Mob of Unnecessary Duplicates"

"Seat thyself sultanically among the moons of Saturn, and take high abstracted man alone; and he seems a wonder, a grandeur, and a woe. But from the same point, take mankind in mass, and for the most part, they seem a mob of unnecessary duplicates..."

Herman Melville in his novel of 1851, Moby Dick 1


Honorable Madam Chair, Judiciary Committee, Montana House of Representatives,

To introduce my view of our common condition I offer to you now a synopsis of sorts, followed by a synthesis of several "S" words.

Political legitimacy is in a state of crisis at present moment. The western mass media is buckling under the strain invoked by a need to reassure an awakening American and United Kingdom public that the events of 911 did indeed happen just as the official government accounting has stated. Daily all across the western world countless citizens are awakening despite the best efforts at "damage control" executed by the controllers of the mass media, the press, talk-radio, magazines, government proclamation, speeches, and Internet pro-imperialism websites - all of which posit the basic government "theory" that al Qaeda attacked America on 911 without any assistance by, or foreknowledge by, the most powerful global government in the history of civilization featuring the most technetronically-advanced defense system on the planet.

As part of his 2006 re-election campaign in Montana, Republican Senator Conrad Burns attacked his opponent, Democrat John Tester, by, among other blasts, accusing Mr. Tester of opposing the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001 and of calling for U.S. withdrawal militarily from Iraq.

 Mr. Burns failed to discern, even five years after 911, that the attacks of 911 might have been planned and carried out by agents of the U.S. government operating within a criminal network inside government offices and agencies. I am hypothesizing to the Committee that it is very possible that a cabal - a criminal network - could extend and operate across agency lines, from inside the CIA to the NSA, from inside the Pentagon to the State Department, from inside FEMA to the White House, and etc. and etc., and that such a cabal could certainly have the capabilities, man-power, materials, equipment, and even the black-budget financing required to execute an amazing series of daring, sophisticated attacks on 9/11.

As a result of Mr. Burns' failure to examine the massive body of evidence which exposes the government explanation of 911 for the great fraud that it appears to be, Mr. Burns had no reason to abstain when it came time to vote the USA PATRIOT ACT and the Real ID Act into being. Mr. Burns claimed that the U.S. troops in Iraq are "fighting al Qaeda". While there are other apparent reasons which seem to be stronger, I would suggest that this is part of the reason Mr. Burns was defeated.

Mr. Burns claimed that tighter controls over the domestic population and the monitoring by the NSA of everyone's communications here in America and abroad was necceary. He claimed that such measures were directly responsible for foiling the alleged attempted bombings of ten aircraft by British-based al Qaeda terrorists in August, 2006. But Mr. Burns, in his zealous adherence to everything proclaimed by the Bush Administration, overlooked the fact that the NSA and Homeland Security did not interdict the planned bombing of ten airplanes by eavesdropping on my personal email and telephone conversations. That is a fact which reveals that, at least in my individual case, I have every moral right to demand of the Federal government that at all times it must honor my rights under the Fourth Amendment, specifically the words: "probable cause".

Mr. Burns lost his campaign race to Mr. Tester. The Republican Party, by and large, took, in President Bush's words, "a thumping".

Like Senator Burns, most Americans and many Montanans at this time still believe the government's official accounting of 911. Like Senator Burns, many Americans still follow blindly every dictum emanating from the White House of the George Walker Bush Administration. Like Senator Burns, many tax-paying citizens of America have already willed in their hearts and minds to believe that foreign enemies, specifically the Osama bin Laden al Qaeda terror network, attacked us on 911 with no assistance from anyone inside the U.S. Federal government. Many Americans even believe that the al Qaeda network attacked America with no provocation by the U.S. government. Yet, above this limited and implanted mass perception stands the lonely and forsaken truth, which silently, like a robed lady of antiquity preserved forever in the visage of the Statue of Liberty, laments the loss of individual reason in the wake of mass programming as it has been cunningly engineered by the controllers of the media and press - and the controllers for whom the media and press advance a subtle but powerful motive.

Above the mass mistake in perception, above the throngs who sprouted millions of tiny American flag decals and "support our troops" decals overnight when the President encouraged this nation into a pre-emptive mode of world-wide war while promising that this new form of war would spread all over the world and would last beyond our lifetimes, for at least a hundred years or more - above all the flag-waving and wildly squealed pseudo-patriotic rhetoric and the public debates; above the willful subjection of once-free Americans to a de facto police state rule of fear; above the willingness of the masses to sacrifice yet more of their freedoms in the name of "security", above all that and more stands firmly and eternally a shocking truth which must wait, possibly, for a new generation to materialize its final appearance. But however unpopular, however difficult to believe, however impossible it must seem to the uninitiated on the face of it, the truth is there. That truth shall out, as truth always does. Time always tells the truth. I hope to shorten the time which human life shall require for an awakened understanding of the ugly truth of 911.

Today's masses seem to be incapable of elevating their imaginations, their understandings, their mental perceptions, to rise to the occasion. Today's masses may never know the despicable and hideous truth about a criminal element operating in total secrecy inside the seats of the peoples' government to plan, orchestrate, arrange financing for, arm with ordnance and logistics for, interface the necessary inter-agency top-secret co-operational liaisons for, set up the necessary proprietary companies for, conduct the needed covers (the "consequence management exercises") for, each major "terrorist event" in Western nations including the UK and the USA.

Most will never know. All the masses below the moons of Saturn and the pyramid's apex, who's lives ebb and flow within realities created and mass-produced by thrusting currents of power, may never know; so one must come out from among them, so to speak. One must rise above the sleepy masses, above the driving somnambulists, in order to know the truth. Indeed, just knowing the truth automatically lifts one above the distracted mass of the collective consciousness, above the "group mind".

Yet, while the masses appear to be forever doomed to the limits imposed by their chosen and preferred beliefs, a surprisingly large number of aware individuals within society-at-large do have the personal power, the psychological power, the spiritual power, and the courage to face squarely the bitter truth that the criminals who attacked America on 911 are to be found in seats of governmental and corporate power right here in America, and among their network's extensions in Europe.

Such brave souls not only must risk estrangement from their beloved societies and cultures and, in many cases even their families and circles of friends; today they also risk the loss of their citizenship at the hands of berserk government enforcement agencies such as the FBI, BATFE, DEA, Treasury Department, U.S. Justice Department, FEMA, IRS, and the infamous Department of Homeland Security - among many others. In finding within their own hearts and minds the personal courage to face an unpopular truth and accept the facts instead of the government's lies regarding 911, these brave souls have managed to over-ride the mass programming and conditioning provided by the government and its private-sector co-conspirators, and have indeed climbed to heights above the crowds.

To do that in a tried and true way, to elevate oneself above the mass perception, one must choose to use one's own inner powers. Self knowledge is personal power. In the willful enjoyment of personal power one finds sufficient energies on the subtle planes which exist peripherally to the extended array of mental fences, those eccentric inner fences which separate one's conscious mind from one's subjective sub-conscious mind. It is a way which is known to work well for souls committed to realizing full awakening for themselves, to souls seeking by rite of individualization a higher sovereignty, and to souls in want of a more meaningful understanding of the world one perceives. That sort of soul, marked with that sort of commitment to elevating oneself from within, may make use of many psychological implementations as directed by one's own nature and spirit; and that sort of soul is never denied answers for questions which one's quest might present.

A study in this very process is confessed by Professor/Theologian David Ray Griffin. In the introduction of his book, The New Pearl Harbor,  on pages xvii and xviii, he notes:

"Until the spring of 2003, I had not looked at any of the evidence. I was vaguely aware that there were people, at least on the Internet, who were offering evidence against the official account of 9/11 and were suggesting a revisionist account, according to which US officials were complicit. But I did not take the time to try to find their websites. I had been studying the history of American expansionism and imperialism quite intensely since 9/11, so I knew that the US government had fabricated 'incidents' as an excuse to go to war several times before. Nevertheless, although the thought did cross my mind that 9/11 might likewise have been arranged, I did not take this possibility seriously. It seemed to me simply beyond belief that the Bush administration - even the Bush administration - would do such a heinous thing. I assumed that those who were claiming otherwise must be 'conspiracy theorists' in the derogatory sense in which this term is usually employed - which means, roughly, 'crackpots'. I knew that if they were right this would be very important. But I was so confident they must be wrong - that their writings would consist merely of loony theories based on wild inferences from dubious evidence - that I had no motivation to invest time and energy in tracking these writings down. I fully sympathize, therefore, with the fact that most people have not examined the evidence. Life is short and the list of conspiracy theories is long, and we all must exercise judgment about which things are worth our investment of time. I had assumed that conspiracy theories about 9/11 were below the threshold of possible credibility." 2

Professor David Ray Griffin then notes that the works of Paul Thompson, Gore Vidal, Nafeez Ahmed, Thierry Meyssan, and Michel Chossudovsky awakened his will to investigate for himself the anomalies surrounding the story of 911. To date Professor Griffin has published two remarkable books as a result of his own thinking on the subject, and has noted: "...the public has not been exposed to the relevant evidence". That is a substantial position for a Professor Emeritus of the Philosophy of Religion at the Claremont School of Theology. Dr. Griffin has taught the philosophy of religion for over thirty years and has published more than twenty books.

Some folks name the inner world "the spiritual world" and name the outer world "the material world". Spirituality is manifested in the inner world of the mind, while base nature is manifested in the activity of the "real world", the physical world, which appears to be material. So it may be said that our lives exist within a balance between the perceptions of the animating psyche and the perceptions of the initiating physical senses. In that balance the fate of mankind is now precariously poised on a threshold of the most immense magnitude conceivable. As I write now in November, 2006, Washington DC is considering the use of pre-emptive nuclear means against the nation-state named Iran, and every wakeful person on earth finds a dread of a nuclear World War III lacing each breath he takes. U.S. foreign and domestic policy each center inescapably at the hub of the Bush-43 Administration's story - the official theory - of what happened to America on 911. It is, therefore, extremely important to know the truth about 911.

It is a given that each of us, by birth into this physical world, is a natural heir to an inner world and an outer world. The inner world is one's private world, and the outer world is everyone's consensus world. One's body may be described, in one view, as being the dividing line between the inner and outer worlds. Each of those diametrically opposed yet largely interfaced worlds represent to one's soul one of two respective realities. One's life is caught in the middle of those two worlds, between those two realities, as one tries to meet the responsibilities of one's existence in life. That which is within becomes that which is without. The inner world has a system of values which includes many more subtle matters than are generally permitted in the outer world. Such subtleties would include emotions, vague psychegenic materials, thoughts, memories, imagination, and systems of morality which denote one's subjective imageries and virtues.

Honesty, for example, is an inner-world value, a character trait, which affects one's actions in the material world. Men who do not value honesty in their inner worlds reveal that lack by their deeds in the outer world, as witnessed by observable phenomena such as lying Presidents and book-cooking thieves like Kenneth Lay of Enron and subversive criminals like Oliver North. (Doubt that Oliver North is a criminal? Read this. )

Men in positions of power who lie to themselves and to the world, to some degree create major problems within mankind's social structures and balances. It is said by some that Philander Knox, Secretary of State in 1913, knowingly lied to the American people about the ratification of the 16th Amendment, and the American people have paid for that lie ever since - literally.

Also revealed is the moral bankruptcy within such men's respective inner worlds. Such men generally attempt to hide their immorality behind the dignity of public offices, behind double-think delusions which mark skewed perceptions of honor and duty and goodness. North, Poindexter, and Negroponte come to mind. Those who've transcended the impulses of their consciences, who have grown numb to the sordid truth which under-girds their chosen misperceptions, often attempt to hide their inner ugliness behind public appearances, speeches and charged posturing in public with wives and families. Some, like Bill Clinton and George Walker Bush, seek to hide themselves behind the Holy Bible.

It matters not how they primp their images, spin themselves to public perception, or project their personal propaganda outwardly to the world, because ultimately, as is the nature of reality, their deeds, in time, drift finally onto the pooled surface of the public knowledge. Truth always outs. Secrets always become revealed. Secrets cannot be kept hidden forever. Inner lies become outer exposures. Men in quest of power usually forget such wisdom as they grab for greater leverage and control over others. Such men grow numb to the quiet whispers of a long-lost inner child, to that child within who once knew good reason to shun the personal possession of power over people.

For that reason alone it is important that every individual question himself inwardly - often, and thoroughly. Men in public office have an even greater responsibility to do this inner work. What they think, individually, can have serious repercussions in the lives of all citizens. While that is true, it is also true that power tends to corrupt. The proper quotation is by Lord Acton, who stated "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Some degree of power "tends to corrupt", he notes, but once total power has been gained it "corrupts absolutely". That seems to me to be an axiom. Thence one facet of our problem today.

As I review American history at this late stage of my life, I find it convenient to associate names, dates, and places with the peak events which have shaped our current world view as Americans. In a way of speaking, I am approximately one-three-hundred-millionth of America. While that fraction could not possibly affect the entirety of America in the "material reality", I yet feel it to be important that I cleanse my own mind of illusions as best I may, that my tiny fraction of our consensus reality might become more a part of the solution than a part of the problem. In questioning authority at the highest Federal levels I in effect am exercising an American's duty to oversee the actions of his government.

To do that with an open mind I must put aside all the programming and conditioning which has been dumped into my mind by Wall Street's National Education Association and the media and the press and governmental proclamation. I must instead rely upon historic fact, precedent, and my mind's capability to reason objectively. To do so, I must include the premise that a criminal with a passion for little boys can become a Catholic priest despite our presumption of the holiness his station implies, and I must include the premise that criminals can make their way into seats of governmental office and power despite our presumption of the honor which indwells those offices. As we all know, both have happened repeatedly, despite the fact that in your and my perception of reality such things could never happen. Priests have been found guilty of sexually molesting little boys, and government employees have been found guilty of committing crimes against the American people. If we are ever to approach the truth about what ails America today, it is necessary for me, and for all people everywhere, to admit that.

Physical reality is shaped, at least in the opinion of some among us if not all, by constructs of one's inner reality, a fact which suggests that mentality, or consciousness, precedes, configures, and sustains that perceived outer reality in which one seeks to act. An example is rendered when doctors and psychiatrists note that patients with the will to heal are treatable, while patients without the will to heal generally perish. Like happiness and health, one's honesty is a decision - a personal decision. The sum total of personal decisions represented by every citizen of the United States all added together dictates the character and quality of decisions made on our behalf by our representative government. The process begins with each of us individually and extends outwardly into the pool of consensus activity.

If we do not like what the government is projecting domestically and abroad, are we not required to review our personal decisions, and the perceptions from which those decisions evolve? Corruption depends upon its ability to pit neighbor against neighbor, "liberal" against "conservative", Republican against Democrat, for in that conflict the seeds of corruption are fertilized and nurtured. Without that conflict corruption remains an isolated nuance, a vague periphery of an un-used portion of the public consciousness.

We do, after all, support the government with our extended allegiance and our tax dollars. It is, after all, our government. Is not the challenge before us today hinged upon each American accepting full responsibility for what he thinks, for his perceptions, for what he does as a result of his thought? Doesn't each man and woman personally, individually, with full knowledge, provide his own light and color to the greater national personality, which represents after all a nation of unified or disunified Americans? Do we like what America has become in the eyes of this world? Do we like what the government is presently doing to destroy our beloved Constitution? Should we not question these things?

The Federal Reserve, the Federal Income Tax, Pearl Harbor, the Gary Powers U-2 shootdown over Russia, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Tonkin Gulf incident, the Warren Commission report, Watergate, the Iran-Contra-Mena scandal, Ruby Ridge and Waco, the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building, the attacks of 911 - all of those incidents in our history, and numerous others, contribute to a long-running series of blatant and massive lies to the American people by government leaders. Every President since Woodrow Wilson is now known to have lied to the American people - it is the public record.

Knowing this, I declare that there is good reason to question the official government account about what happened to America on 9/11. If it can be shown conclusively that the government story about 911 is fraudulent, is a fabricated deception, then the American people stand a chance of regaining control over our berserk Federal government. A possible turn-about of such magnitude in current world history is certainly worth my time and effort. If what I think I've discovered is itself untrue, as part of me would hope to be the case, then I shall take my reconciliation in the knowledge of my own obscurity, and beg the Committee's forgiveness.

I am not, however, the only Montanan who thinks he has discovered an ugly truth behind yet another massive government-sponsored lie, nor am I the only Montanan who understands that Osama bin Laden could not have caused WTC-7 to implode on the afternoon of 911. There are now many thousands of Montanans and millions of Americans who seriously suspect that major elements of our current Federal government are lying about 9/11, are covering up the truth about who attacked us and how the attacks were carried out.

My tiny contribution to the massive body of investigative work which brave and patriotic individuals have amassed is, I trust, my modest ability to couch the perception of 9/11 in its proper historic context, to recall relevant historic precedent, and to reveal in new ways the hidden workings of the globalizing socialist forces which are attempting to establish a one-world government. It occurs to me that the way to win the "War on Terror" is to end the War on Terror; and that the way to end the War on Terror is to force our own government to cease creating terrorist events and abusing its powers in foreign policy which generate anti-American hatred worldwide. The way to force our government to cease creating terrorism is to expose the crimes of those criminals inside seats of government power who are abusing the public trust, deceiving the American people, and leveraging both profit and power into the hands of what Woodrow Wilson described in 1919 as "a small group of dominant men". 3




To begin our look into the criminality of various members of Presidential Administrations and respective Cabinets and relevant Federal agencies, I would like to invite readers to note a published speech by the Clinton Administration's Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen. The entire speech is reprinted in my addendum section just as it was published in the Washington Post on July 26, 1999. Few Americans are aware of this speech. In this letter I shall omit much of the speech, selecting only the more glaring passages which indicate a concerted effort by forces inside our Federal government to implement a "War on Terror". The entire speech is a classic, so I invite patient readers to read it in its entirety in the addendum - first. Below, Cohen's words shall be in italics and my comments are preceded by my initials (EA) and will be in straight type.


Preparing for a Grave New World

By Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, as published in The Washington Post, Monday, July 26, 1999

The United States now faces something of a superpower paradox. Our supremacy in the conventional arena is prompting adversaries to seek unconventional, asymmetric means to strike our Achilles’ heel. At least 25 countries, including Iraq and North Korea now have -- or are in the process of acquiring and developing – weapons of mass destruction. Of particular concern is the possible persistence in some foreign military arsenals of smallpox, the horrific infectious virus that decimated entire nations down the ages and against which the global population is currently defenseless.

EA: Please note that Mr. Cohen does not mention that the U.S. had in the previous decade sold to Iraq four billion dollars' worth of weapons of mass destruction, including anthrax and other types of "horrific infectious virus(es)". 4 Also note that with the fall of the USSR the United States had no viable "enemy" which could threaten our nation. That situation posed staggering questions regarding Defense Department contracting and outsourcing, the demise of which could conceivably be construed as a threat to the economic stability of the United States. With the simplest little twist in logic by men who maintained financial contact with the industries which drive Defense spending, that dire situation could certainly have been seen as a threat - if an indirect one - to "national security". It is a common perception in Washington D.C. and a perception which Senator Burns believed unquestioningly. We must ask: could the American economy stand in the absence of the massive Defense spending programs which had been built up during forty years of Cold War arms races? Could this have been on the minds of our Federal level leadership in the wake of the demise of the Soviet Union?

Also looming is the chance that these terror weapons will find their way into the hands of individuals and independent groups -- fanatical terrorists and religious zealots beyond our borders, brooding loners and self-proclaimed apocalyptic prophets at home.

EA: Cohen here skirts another unspoken question: With the remarkable security systems of Defense research and development, manufacturing facilities such as Fort Detrick or Lawrence Livermore or Los Alamos, and top-secret protocols which mark every level of the arms industry as it interfaces with government purchase and deployment of sophisticated weaponry, how in the name of logic is the American citizen supposed to think "fanatical terrorists ...  religious zealots....brooding loners...." and etc., could obtain the closely-held secret weaponry of the United States Department of Defense, unless someone (or some agency) inside our security perimeters provided such thugs with the stuff? Are we to believe that there must be no accountability for the deliberate "leaking" of weapons of mass destruction into the wrong hands, and that such discrepancies should not be punished?

If an Iraqi spy somehow stole the secret of making anthrax from Ft. Detrick, we might understand that we had lost one round in the spy-vs-spy game; but when our Defense Department and State Department and Intelligence community deliberately, for profit, sold anthrax to Iraq under a blanket of total secrecy while at the same time selling weapons to Iran (Reagan Administration), who in our government can be held accountable for such grave breaches in the nation's security? How could the Pentagon sell billions of dollars' worth of weapons of mass destruction to Iraq without surmising beforehand that Saddam Hussein may or may not pass some of that stuff along to radical groups or "rogue states"? Who should we hold accountable for selling anthrax to Saddam Hussein? And why should we suddenly accept, that now, because of that sort of high-level stupidity, we the people must allow the military to police our nation to save us from attacks using the very weaponry we developed and sold abroad? We must ask: Was this incompetence and stupidity on the part of leaders, or was there a greater, yet very subtle, agenda lurking behind such otherwise obvious blunders? The simple fact is that we created those weapons, we developed and manufactured them, all under the closest wraps of top-secret security. If they have fallen into foreign hands, the blame for that must rest with our own agencies, including the Defense Department and its contractors. Cohen continues...

Welcome to the grave New World of terrorism -- a world in which traditional notions of deterrence and counter-response no longer apply. Perpetrators may leave no postmark or return address -- no tell-tale signs of a missile launch, no residue of TNT that can be traced to a construction site, no rental truck receipts leading to fool-hardy suspects. In fact, their place of business may be a number of countries that are conducting bioengineering under the guise of pharmaceutical research; Penicillin for the poor or Ebola for the enemy? Who is to say, and with what deterrent is America left?

Preparation is itself a deterrent. By minimizing the death and destruction would-be terrorists hope to spawn, we reduce the likelihood they will even try. Yet a chemical or biological strike on American soil could quickly surpass any community’s ability to cope.

As part of a federal interagency effort launched last year by President Clinton and led by the National Security Council, the Defense Department is doing its part to prepare the nation for the catastrophic consequences of an attack that unleashes these horrific weapons. Because it has long prepared to face this grim possibility on the battlefield, the military has unique capabilities to offer in the domestic arena as well.

EA: The military's "unique capabilities" have known parameters of function. The military infrastructure itself is by its very nature designed to be the epitome of force. Is that what we might want for assistance in the aftermath of a terrorist event? When the military was employed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina at New Orleans in 2005, a soldier noted on film 5 that "We don't like to think about what we might have to do here.... in our own country."  _ _ _ _ _(see Russo, Freedom to Fascism for quote). When the military assisted the BATF and FBI at Waco, Texas, it demonstrated its "unique capabilities" via its Delta Force specialists, and as a result a church full of men, women, and children were horribly burned and gunned to death. 6 That strikes me as being exemplary of the military's, any military's, perception of "assistance". We the people created our military and placed it under the civil control of the Department of Defense. The Posse Commitatus Act has been law in our nation since 1878.

Several core principles are guiding our efforts. First, any military assistance in the wake of a domestic attack must be in support of the appropriate federal civilian authority – either the Department of Justice or the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Second, an unequivocal and unambiguous chain of responsibility, authority and accountability for that support must exist.

EA:  Cohen is here describing a "chain of command". Does not any chain of command  by definition include an "unequivocal and unambiguous chain of responsibility, authority and accountability"? Cohen's speech writer appears to have found a way of announcing a military chain of command over domestic civil agencies as well as civilians and citizens, but only in the event that the military is required in response to a terrorist event. It conveys every aspect of "chain of command" without saying "chain of command". Why? Was Cohen's speech-writer, or Cohen himself, seeking to disguise a military-police state being hatched? Also, this is a good time to ask: When this nation was attacked a mere twenty-six months after Cohen made this speech, where was the government's, and especially the military's, response to four hijacked and off-course and wandering commercial airliners which flew about within the monitored air space of the northeast air defense sector (NEADS) over a period of time from an hour to an hour and forty-five minutes unmolested, un-intercepted, and un-interdicted by NORAD? What does the U.S. military's performance on the morning of 911 tell us about our wisdom as a people?

Third, military assistance should not come at the expense of our primary mission – fighting and winning our nation’s wars. A special Task Force for Civil Support is being created to ensure that we have the military assets necessary to help respond domestically while still meeting our foremost mission.

EA: In an allegedly "representative government", should not such policies be openly discussed prior to implementation? Would the American people welcome a military "Task Force for Civil Support" if the people knew that military rule would become the lasting aftermath of a terrorist attack? As Cohen states in his speech, that support was already being created before he announced it on July 26, 1999.

Fourth, our military response efforts will be grounded primarily in the National Guard and Reserve. In contrast to their more familiar role of reinforcing active-duty forces deployed overseas, our Guard and Reserve are the forward-deployed forces here at home. Special National Guard teams are being positioned around the nation to advise and assist communities upon request.

EA: Upon who's request - a President who had just declared martial law and ordered the military's participation? Cohen's speech writer is bold and uses every trick in the book to mask the awful implications lurking in the speech.

Finally, we must not and will not trample on American lives and liberties in the name of preserving them. Fears about the military's role in domestic affairs are unfounded, as evidenced by a long history of reasonable and successful military support to communities ravaged by natural disasters, such as fire and flood.

EA: Why would Cohen throw in such a "disclaimer"? Did he anticipate a public reaction to this glaring assignment of the military on domestic soil? He reassures us in the next breath...

As in the past, any military support will be precisely that – support. Both legal and practical considerations demand it. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Defense Department’s implementing policies are clear – the military is not to conduct domestic law enforcement without explicit statutory authority, and we strongly believe no changes should be made to Posse Comitatus.

EA: Now we little citizens feel better, yes? This military support on U.S. soil is admittedly bound to respect the laws of the land. What Cohen leaves out of that promise is the staggering and over-whelming array of Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives which now await the "legal" declaration of martial law under any President's use of the two words we all dread - "National Emergency". Regarding the Posse Comitatus act of 1878, the current Bush-43  Administration has shown clear signs that it intends to extend the nefarious evasions begun by President Clinton with his infamous PDD-25 of 1993. The current view on the Hill is that there now exist sufficient over-riding legislations and Executive Orders and PDDs to legally bypass the Posse Comitatus act. There is no need by culprits to do away with a law if Executive Orders or PDDs cut a swath around it. Hence, Cohen could "strongly believe no changes should be made to Posse Comitatus" and still see a military galloping across American cities, towns, and rural areas. Worse, in the words of General Tommy Franks (published in a 2004 Cigar Afficionado Magazine interview), if another major terror event occurs we shall have to do away with the U.S. constitution and rely upon a "military form of government". A chilling fact is that under a "military form of government", which is another name for Martial Law, the "explicit statutory authority" is simply the whim and word of the military's Commander in Chief, the President-turned-Ruler. We also should know that in 2005, a mere six years after this speech by Cohen, President George Walker Bush has signed an Executive Order which permits him to declare martial law in the event of any declared "emergency", without specifying what the "emergency" happens to be, and additionally, the U.S. Congress shall not be allowed to review that secret emergency until six months after the emergency has been declared. (Russo; 7)

But merely managing the consequences of an attack is not sufficient. We must be vigilant in seeking to interdict and defeat the efforts of those who seek to inflict mass destruction on us. This will require greater international cooperation, intelligence collection abroad and information gathering by law enforcement agencies at home. Information is clearly power, and greater access to information will require the American people and their elected officials to find the proper balance between privacy and protection.

EA: In future letters we shall look into the "...information gathering by law enforcement agencies at home" phenomenon.

There need be no fear or foreboding by the American people of the preparations of their government. On the contrary, the greater threat to our civil liberties stems from the chaos and carnage that might result from an attack for which we had failed to prepare and the demands for action that would follow.

EA: Here we have the classic sell-out by our leaders. Cohen's message could easily be transcribed thusly: "We goofed up and let our most-secretive weapons of mass destruction fall into the hands of rogue states and terrorist organizations as we assisted the arms manufacturers in selling their wares around the world; so now we've got to protect you against their use of those lost secret weapons which we failed to protect; but we're going to be very merciful toward your rights as citizens while we balance your security against your liberty. You can trust us on this." That is, of course, one of the oldest treacheries ever used by any Emperor, King, or Dictator in history. Tyrants have always announced to their citizenry that in their best interests they shall be required to give up some of their liberties in order to insure their security. What I hope to show in this collection of letters is that behind such official blunders as providing Saddam Hussein with anthrax is a policy-setting secret cabal of criminal minds in seats of government office and high-level private sector positions who literally created the War on Terror after the end of the Cold War. (The foreign policy mechanisms of government, which work in tandem with Defense contractors and administrators, generated the preparations for this decades earlier, beginning in the early 1950s.) By the time the Committee reads all the material I shall include in this body of letters, that notion shall not seem so far-fetched. I am now going to include one bit more of Cohen's speech for a purpose which will become clear later.

Mere months before the attack on Pearl Harbor shocked America out of its slumber, Walter Lippmann wrote, "Millions will listen to, and prefer to believe, those who tell them that they need not rouse themselves, and that all will be well if only they continue to do all the pleasant and profitable and comfortable things they would like to do best." The race is on between our preparations and those of our adversaries. We are preparing for the possibility of a chemical or biological attack on American soil because we must. There is not a moment to lose.

EA:  It is important to note that Cohen used, in July 1999, an allusion to Pearl Harbor. He notes that Pearl Harbor "shocked America out of its slumber". It is vital here to mentally note that as Cohen spoke, the co-founders of the Project For A New American Century (PNAC) were themselves working on the document which would be sent to the Clinton White House the following year, entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses". 8 In that document is another chilling allusion to Pearl Harbor, which we'll look into in detail in a future letter entitled "Chain Of Command". Another note we must hold aside for later is Cohen's use of a quotation by Walter Lippmann. Walter Lippmann will be unmasked in a future letter entitled "Feducation: Opening The Conspiracy". Additionally, we recall that the year 1999 was the first anniversary of the publication of Zbigniew Brzezinski's book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives. 9 As the template for the mindset of the PNAC, The Grand Chessboard also contains a recollection of the impact and effect of Pearl Harbor. That very likely indicates that Brzezinski influenced the founders of the PNAC, i.e., Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, et al, who in turn influenced Cohen. The association of this shared perception involves men who lie at the heart of the "Wolfowitz doctrine", the heart of the neo-conservative war-hawk mentality which drives the ever-increasing Defense spending which has abused the Administration of George W. Bush.

To better understand that, let's look at a passage from the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document and compare it with a passage from The Grand Chessboard. On page 51 of the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses", wherein the PNAC is advising the White House of the urgent need to vastly increase the Defense Department's budget and scope in a "radical transformation" which would be capable of maintaining American supremacy on a world-wide basis, we read:

 "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

And on page 211 in Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard we read:

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II...."

So we now can see that Brzezinski's idea was parroted by the PNAC and by then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen. That is the lineage of the idea of a provoked incident to shape public support for a policy. When a former Presidential National Security Adviser, a former and current Secretary of Defense, a coming Vice President, and their circles all allude to a specific idea or mental construct, may we not infer directly that the idea is held in common within the policy-setting factions of the Department of Defense and Defense-related offices? The answer to that question is in the affirmative of course.

A grace-note to this came on the day of 911 itself when television viewers who were glued to their TV sets heard these words in reference to the attacks of that morning:

"This is being viewed as another Pearl Harbor." 10

In the introduction to his book, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, David Ray Griffin notes:

"The attacks of 9/11 have often been compared with the attack on Pearl Harbor. Investigator James Bamford, for example, has written about President Bush's behavior 'in the middle of a modern-day Pearl Harbor'. CBS News(*) reported that the president himself, before going to bed on 9/11, wrote in his diary: 'The New Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today'." 2

*Griffin sources the CBS News statement as having been issued on January 27, 2002.

~ ~ ~


Although we shall read this again in a later letter, let us consider now a brief quotation from the American Historical Association, as found on the AHA's Internet website 11 -

There, we read:

“How the State asserts its authority in foreign affairs has been described by Stanley Hoffmann 12 in a passage that emphasizes the degree to which its sphere of action is composed not of determinable but of uncertain factors that it is the duty of statecraft to assess, shape, and exploit. Statecraft, Hoffmann has claimed,

'emanates from a milieu—the domestic society—whose values, political and social institutions, experiences, and patterns of authority are never entirely fixed or coherent, never point only in one direction, and, while ruling out certain choices, leave a considerable margin for maneuver ...;

bulletand statecraft operates in a milieu—the international system—that has repeatedly been defined as an arena for competition for multiple stakes, with uncertain rules which the players ... hammer out by trial and error, and characterized by moves which, however cleverly calculated, are more like wagers than rational adaptations of means to ends.'”

As we note Mr. Hoffmann's observation that 'Statecraft' emanates within the system of a domestic society and comes to operate within what is called an 'international system', we approach also a phenomenon known as “policy”. Policy could be said to be the events in time which reveal and characterize a government's actions. We understand that the government's actions are formed through the practice of statecraft and are known commonly as "policy". We see that policy is enforced by government arms, be it the local policeman enforcing domestic law or the soldier enforcing foreign policy.

In the arena of Statecraft there is Domestic Policy, and there is Foreign Policy, and there is Personal Policy. I am supposing that Foreign Policy is derived from Domestic Policy, which itself must derive from the interacting and originating Personal Policy of as many individuals as may exist, inter-relate, and/or compete within the domestic totality.


As Gore Vidal has noted, the birth of the American National Security State was accomplished in 1947 when President Truman signed into law the “National Security Act of 1947”. Thus, two years after the ending of World War II the National Security Act of 1947 created the Black Budget, the National Security Council (NSC) at the White House, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) at Langley, Virginia.  We will look into that closely elsewhere.

But perhaps even more importantly, in granting the license of secrecy to the agencies and offices which the act commissioned, the National Security Act of 1947 also established concretely the authority by which a part of - a knowable percentage of - the Federal government of the United States of America may deceive the American people, and do so legally. It is as if a dark power which this nation's founders had truly feared was finally born, and that dark power like any other governmental activity would work diligently to effect its own perpetuation and development and expansion and growth.

We immediately see a problem with the National Security Act of 1947, because the Federal government of the United States of America is purportedly a “representative” government. The integrity of true representation of the will of the people must necessarily include governmental transparency in every aspect of a government's administration of its powers, its acts, its authority, and its legitimacy upon the governed. Take away the practice of full transparency by government and that government cannot, by definition, be a truly representative government. A half-century after the National Security Act of 1947 it is strikingly apparent that the absence of transparency in the Federal government is the characterizing, dominant, even preferred mode in which the Federal government administers itself upon the American people and the several States, including Montana.

Given the legal right to deceive the American citizenry by various means which include outright lying, withholding knowable information, distortion of the truth, misrepresentation, prevarication, exaggeration, understatement, “spin”, indecipherable allegory, and many other common techniques which facilitate deception, we now see that since 1947 a given aspect of the nature of our Federal government is marked by treachery and treason. That fact cannot be separated from the crisis conditions we face today. One of the more prominent examples of this is carried by the IRS, which has defied the Supreme Court and the 1rst Amendment while enforcing a law which does not exist. 13

Secrecy is the opposite of transparency. Secrecy in government is the methodical assault upon representative governance. And Secrecy is clearly one of the more profound characteristics of the Federal government of the United States of America.

ea - look into Moynahan's book, Secrecy, here....

The three capital “S” words:

Secrecy, and all that accompanies it, can be said to be the antithesis of representative governance. It is not possible, by definition, for any fully-representative government to withhold knowledge and/or information from the governed regarding practices, policy, designations of various and multiple authorities, taxation, treaties, covert and clandestine actions, and/or any other fields of play involving governmental offices and officers. Secrecy and self-originating representative governance simply are at opposite ends of the spectrum. We may say conclusively that Secrecy is the exact opposite of transparent representative government.

Statecraft, being the practice and shaping of policy both domestic and foreign, can or may be an honorable function of elected officials in any representative government. But when combined with Secrecy, Statecraft can, and invariably does, become the most serious form of threat any free nation can face. When Statecraft and Secrecy are merged, Security is compromised. Witness today's headlines and political circus.

Security is, on the level of foreign policy, primarily a name for our nation's Defense programs, techniques, and goals. Transparent foreign policy produces transparent Security, but Secret foreign policy destroys Security in many ways, some more serious and grave than others. Witness CIA's half-century clandestine involvement in the near and middle East. Security at the domestic level may be localized or nationalized, or may be a mixture of local action with nationally-originating action. In America, the locally-oriented Security runs par with a generalization known as "states' rights" while localized Security is contemporaneously conformed to Federalized organization.

On the level of domestic policy, Security may be said to be a hierarchy of the dispersion of power in a grid woven by the union of local, state, and federal government agencies. But that is not truly Security; it is the illusion of Security, because all law enforcement must by definition resolve crime and attempt to deter crime, but is not required to prevent it.

If we expected government to prevent crime, and if government claimed that it could and would prevent crime, then we could sue government every time our home is burglarized or we are robbed or assaulted or otherwise violated. Since no court in the land would back up anyone's claim that the government's enforcement community should (or could) be responsible for preventing a given crime against any person, government is not required to exercise domestic and personal Security except in retrospect, i.e., investigating, discovering, identifying, and bringing to “justice” those suspected of committing crimes. We may qualify that statement by noting that law enforcement and the communities across our land do believe and hope that the retrospective activities of law enforcement, when coupled with visible presence of law enforcement, does in some ways possibly prevent or deter some crime. My point is that law enforcement is not legally liable for the prevention of crime. I think that partly because of that, the founders have protected the individual's right to “self defense” in the 2nd Amendment.

Real Security at the domestic level has to do with the moral fiber of any given community – and, since 1947, it appears to involve any given community's ability to remain detached from the 'unintended consequences' of the national government's foreign policy, when and if the foreign policy is shrouded in Secrecy. Montanans today are being asked by the Federal government of the United States of America to accept the fact of terrorism on U.S. soil, on Montana soil. And we are being asked by the Federal government to accept its remedial and intrusive operations within our daily lives as the appropriate response to that terrorism. This is a direct result of Secrecy in Statecraft at the national level of governance, as we shall see.

An example is the matter of a young CIA (hardly six years in existence at the time) being employed by British interests (most notably: British Intelligence, on behalf of British Petroleum, “BP”) in the clandestine and covert removal - by terrorism and violence - of the government of Iran in 1953 and the subsequent installation of the Shah of Iran by British and American “State-crafters”. 14 

One can only speculate as to what U.S. foreign policy in that region might have been today had the U.S. not intruded into the destiny of Iran in 1953, had not secretly created and waged state-sponsored terrorism to remove the democratically elected government of Iran, and had not been 'outed' for doing the deed. The Iranian people knew that the CIA was involved in the coup, that the Shah and his CIA-created death-squad security force, SAVAK, constituted a puppet government assigned by the U.S. government. The American people would not learn of their government's conspiracy to overthrow Iran's government until many years later.

Because of governmental secrecy, most Americans today are still not aware that the CIA and British Intelligence did this to the people of Iran. And even for those who discover this fact of history, the story cheerfully ignores questions regarding legitimacy for this sort of Secret foreign-policy operation. Has a CFR-influenced NEA and a CFR-influenced mass-media deliberately shielded this information from today's government-school students and the population at large? Why has the George Walker Bush Administration failed to remind the American people, while taking this nation into a perpetual war on terrorism and invading Iran's neighboring countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), that the U.S. illegally and with violence used state-sponsored terrorism to destroy the democratic government of Iran in 1953?

It is fair and necessary to ask this: What would Americans think today if Iran covertly took down the sitting U.S. President and was then discovered to be behind the coup, as happened by the hand of our CIA in Iran? Would not Americans immediately demand of their Congress a declaration of war against Iran? Are we then to be surprised that many Iranians resent our having done just that to them and their sovereign nation? Another question: How could the antics of our CIA in Iran in 1953 possibly be defined as 'Constitutional'? Further, did not this illegal and immoral act by the CIA engender a hatred of America among the Arab nation-states? Did it not fuel latent discontent between the West and the East? Could that be now seen as a side-effect which would benefit any secretive group who wished to destabilize relations between East and West for the purpose of creating terrorism? Recall Cohen's speech above.

Such questions evoke very serious subsequent questions about the subject of “Statecraft” when it is practiced in Secrecy under the guise of national Security. Much of the content of these letters to the Committee shall be dealing with such questions, for, as I hope to show conclusively, every citizen of Montana is presently being deceived regarding state-sponsored and state-executed terrorism on U.S. soil. I refer to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City Federal building bombing, the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent anthrax mailings after 9/11.

Because of those four primary acts of “terrorism” Americans and Montanans are being asked to accept un-constitutional governmental powers over their lives in the form of Orwellian legislations which include the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, two Acts named “VICTORY Act One and Two”, the “Real ID Act”, and other laws which eviscerate the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

It is my opinion that this sordid turn of events for Montanans and Americans everywhere is the direct result of the practice of Secrecy in Statecraft which has been executed in the name of Security for many decades. To approach an understanding of the material I have collected, one must turn to templates and patterns now largely hidden and suppressed from “the average Wal-Mart shopper”, the average American citizen, the average Montanan. More than a century of NEA influence regarding content of textbooks used in government-sponsored public schools has largely helped eliminate much factual American history, especially history relating to U.S. involvement in the wars of the Twentieth Century, from World War I to the Iraq wars. The controllers of the mass media in America have also contributed to the general vacuum in perception by the American population regarding our government's Secret activities abroad and domestically.

Because of the scope of what I intend to share with you here, I shall be looking briefly at peaks in our history from the American Revolution to present. Such peaks are drawn from the hidden history of the first half of the 19th Century which led to the Civil War, the post-Civil War history of the 19th Century, the history of the Federal Reserve System, Inc. and the IRS, the history of 20th Century American warfare from World War I to Desert Storm and afterward, the history of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the history of the National Education Association (NEA), the history of the tax-exempt Foundations such as Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan and others, the history of Wall Street's participation in and manipulation of Statecraft, and various names of previously-admired Statesmen-gone-awry, such as the Dulles brothers, George Herbert Walker, W. Averell Harriman and family, U.S. Senator Prescott Bush and his heirs, Woodrow Wilson's Administration, and many others.

What I hope to  properly reveal by arranging known historic peaks and people in a unique manner through these letters shall prove to be unsettling and startling, if I prove able to accomplish the rendering, for I deliberately intend to expose a criminal enterprise which has taken this great nation of ours from within, by an amazing engineered and choreographed mass perception, silently and secretly, by, among other interfaced tactics, the practice of Statecraft.

I further hope to reveal how our Federal agencies and Federal offices have been used by these organized and unorganized criminals, by virtue of their manner of operating, to literally arrange and execute the four major terrorism events mentioned above. I also hope to show in my subjective views “why”. Additionally, I am attempting to show how this has happened to us by design, by a design which is rooted in European financial powers sitting behind the Bank of England in the City of London and in other financial capitols of European nation-states. Finally, I intend to show that our current domestic crisis is the direct result of the unbridled practice of Statecraft in Secrecy under the guise of Security – and that our crisis has been deliberately and methodically planned and executed - for a purpose.

With the humble and hopeful offer of my allegiance to the State government of Montana, I am compelled to share these letters with the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives of the State of Montana as a matter of my Personal Policy.

It is my sincere hope that the Judiciary Committee of the Montana House of Representatives shall lend an ear to my voice and shall extend to me and all other Montanans the full protection of the State of Montana against criminals operating within offices of the Federal government of the United States of America.

Thank you for reading.

Elias Alias



1) Moby Dick

by Herman Melville (1851); Signet Classic, New American Library, 1633 Broadway, New York, New York, 10019; no ISBN in my paperback copy.

2) The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About The Bush Administration And 9/11

by David Ray Griffin; copyright 2004 by David Ray Griffin; Foreword copyrighted by Richard Falk 2004; published by: Olive Branch Press, An imprint of Interlink Publishing Group, Inc., 46 Crosby Street, Northhampton, Massachusetts 01060, www.interlinkbooks.com ; ISBN: 1-56656-552-9 (pbk).

3) "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." ~ Woodrow Wilson, 1919, reflecting upon the effects of his Administration's having established the Federal Reserve System, Inc.

4) Riegle Report of the U.S. Senate. (EA: put Riegle report in Addendum)

5) Zbigniew Brzezinski's interview in 'Le Nouvel Observateur' (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76. See quoted passages below.

6) See Bibliography, Documentary Films, Waco: A New Revelation. The FBI's own FLIR film footage is featured in this film and shows clearly the government gunmen firing at church members as they tried to flee the burning buildings.

7) Aaron Russo. See Bibliography, Documentary Films, America: From Freedom To Fascism.

8) Website of the Project For A New American Century - www.pnac.org  - "documents" folder; pdf file.

9) The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives

by Zbigniew Brzezinski; copyright 1997 by Zbigniew K. Brzezinski; published by Basic Books, a division of Perseus Books Group; ISBN: (cloth: 0-465-02725-3) (paper: 0-465-02726-1).

10) See Bibliography, Documentary Films, 911 Press For Truth.

11) American Historical Association website:  http://www.historians.org/info/AHA_History/gacraig.htm

12) Hoffmann, Gulliver’s Troubles: or, The Setting of American Foreign Policy (New York, 1968), xvi.

13) We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education - www.givemeliberty.org

14) http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

The history of the 1953 coup by CIA and British Intelligence which took down Iran's government was written by one of the coup's planners. The entire account, with photographs, is in the New York Times historical library online at the above link. There we read: “Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister. ( .... ) Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government.”


Below is a brief excerpt of Brzezinski's interview with the French magazine - Le Nouvel Observateur  - wherein Brzezinski reveals the insane tunnel vision of a true warhawk neocon. We will see this again in this series of letters.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?


Note:  Further documentation regarding CIA's propaganda operations in Iran in 1953 are found on Alex Jones' documentary film, Terrorstorm. See Bibliography, Documentary films, Terrorstorm.


- home - 911 Open Letters -