U.S. Attorney or District Attorney
Can Prosecute Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld for
Murder on 9/11
April 4, 2010
This article is the fourth of a
multi-part series on secret technologies, their application to the
September 11, 2001, and the
consequent implications for our society.
Former U.S. President
George W. Bush, Vice President
Richard B. Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald H.
Rumsfeld can each be prosecuted for murder by a U.S.
attorney, by a district attorney or by a non-U.S. state prosecutor
whose citizens were killed at the World Trade Center or in any
aspect of the false flag operation on September 11, 2001.
AP: Bush receiving
History Making Texan award on March 2, 2010
The prima facie evidence for prosecuting
Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld for murder is contained in a
Memorandum to the U.S. Congress, Parts IV-VII of which published in
the Examiner article below.
In 2008, former Los Angeles assistant District Attorney and author
Vincent Bugliosi presented the legal framework for the
prosecution of former George W. Bush for murder in having
intentionally misled the U.S. Congress in taking the U.S. to war in
This reporter, Alfred Lambremont
Webre, has successfully presented the
legal framework for the
prosecution of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for murder for having
knowingly engaged in command and control operations in the false
flag operation of 9/11 that intentionally led to the deaths of
approximately 2830 innocent civilians and emergency responders at or
around the World Trade Center.
In Memo to U.S. Congress: prima facie evidence that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld committed treason on 9/11, Examiner reported how a
Memorandum to the U.S. Congress presented to then incoming Chairman
of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Rep.
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich), following the November 2006
mid-term elections sets out prima facie evidence for the appointment
of an independent prosecutor to prosecute then,
U.S. President George W. Bush
Vice President Richard B. Cheney
Secretary of Defense Donald H.
...and numerous Jane and John Does for
treason under Article III (3) of the U.S. Constitution for acts
committed on September 11, 2001.
One source states,
“In common law jurisdictions,
facie denotes evidence which – unless rebutted – would be
sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. For
example, in a trial under Criminal law the prosecution has the
burden of presenting prima facie evidence of each element of the
crime charged against the defendant.”
The source continues:
“Murder, as defined in common law
countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with
intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of
mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide
(such as manslaughter).
As the loss of a human being
inflicts enormous grief upon the individuals close to the
victim, as well as the fact that the commission of a murder
deprives the victim of their existence, most societies both
present and in antiquity have considered it a most serious crime
worthy of the harshest of punishment.
A person convicted of murder is
typically given a life sentence or even the death penalty for
such an act. A person who commits murder is called a murderer.”
Memorandum to the U.S. Congress is
still on the desk of Rep. John Conyers, Jr. awaiting further action
by the U.S. Judiciary Committee.
However, as this Examiner article
demonstrates, prima facie evidence exists for a U.S. attorney, a
district attorney or a non-U.S. state prosecutor whose citizens were
killed at the World Trade Center or in any aspect of the false flag
operation on September 11, 2001 to prosecute Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney,
Mr. Rumsfeld for murder.
The false flag operation of 9/11 is not an academic issue.
NATO heads of state, from U.S. President
Barack H. Obama to Canadian Prime Minister
routinely still employ "9/11" as the political and symbolic pretext
for a war in Afghanistan, and for the expansion of police state
measures domestically and in the world’s travel, banking and
In a 2006 paper entitled, “False
Flag Operations, 9/11, and the Exopolitical Perspective”,
Dr. Michael E. Salla writes:
“According to an August 2006 Scripps
Howard/Ohio University national survey, 36% of Americans believe
9-11 was an ‘inside job’ with government agencies complicit in
what occurred. A Zogby poll in May 2006 found that 42% of
Americans believed that official explanations and the 9-11
Commission were covering up the truth.”
the U.S. Congress - parts IV-VII
The following are Parts IV-VII of the Memorandum, together with
relevant evidentiary attachments.
For reasons of space, the excerpts from the Memorandum to the U.S.
Congress in this Examiner article do not contain the footnotes and
full references in the original Memorandum.
Readers are encouraged to
download a copy of the original
Memorandum to the U.S. Congress
IV. Why Did the President and His Secret
Service Agents Remain at the School?
“President George W. Bush
reportedly believed, upon hearing that a plane had struck
one of the Twin Towers, that it was an accident. It was not
terribly strange, therefore, that he decided to go ahead
with the photo-op at the school in Sarasota.
Word of the second strike,
however, should have indicated to him and his Secret Service
agents - assuming the truth of official story, according to
which these strikes were unexpected - that the country was
undergoing an unprecedented terrorist attack. And yet the
Secret Service allowed him to remain at the school for
another half hour.
“This behavior was very strange. The president’s location
had been highly publicized. If the attacks were indeed
unexpected, the Secret Service would have had no idea how
many planes had been hijacked, and they would have had to
assume that the president himself might be one of the
targets: What could be more satisfying to foreign terrorists
attacking high-value targets in the United States than to
kill the president?
For all the Secret Service would
have known, a hijacked airliner might have been bearing down
on the school at that very minute, ready to crash into it,
killing the president and everyone else there - including
the Secret Service agents themselves. It is, in any case,
standard procedure for the Secret Service to rush the
president to a safe location whenever there is any sign that
he may be in danger.
And yet these agents, besides
allowing the president to remain in the classroom another 10
minutes, permitted him to speak on television, thereby
announcing to the world that he was still at the school.
“Would not this behavior be explainable only if Bush and the
head of the Secret Service detail knew that the planned
attacks did not include an attack on the president? And how
could this have been known for certain unless the attacks
were being carried out by people within our own government?
The 9/11 Commission, far from
asking these questions, was content to report that ‘[t]he
Secret Service told us they... did not think it imperative
for [the president] to run out the door.’
A serious inquiry into this
matter, therefore, remains to be made.”
AP: Cheney at
National Press Club, June 1, 09
V. Why Did the 9/11 Commission Lie
about Vice President Cheney?
“One sign of the complicity of
Vice President Cheney is the fact that the 9/11 Commission
evidently felt a need to lie about the time of two of his
activities: his entry into the Presidential Emergency
Operations Center (PEOC) under the White House and his
giving the order to shoot down any unauthorized airplanes.
“It had been widely reported that Cheney had gone down to
the PEOC shortly after the second strike on the WTC, hence
about 9:15. The most compelling witness was Secretary of
Transportation Norman Mineta, who testified to the 9/11
Commission that when he arrived at the PEOC at 9:20, Cheney
was already there and fully in charge.
'The 9/11 Commission Report,
however, claimed that Cheney did not enter the PEOC
until ‘shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.’
Mineta’s testimony, given in an
open hearing, was simply omitted from the Commission’s final
report. Why would the Commission go to such lengths to
conceal the true time of Cheney’s entry into the PEOC?
“One possible reason would involve the content of Mineta’s
testimony. He said: ‘During the time that the airplane was
coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would
come in and say to the Vice President, ‘The plane is 50
miles out.’ ‘The plane is 30 miles out.’
And when it got down to ‘the
plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the Vice
President, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the Vice
President... said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have
you heard anything to the contrary?’
“Mineta said that this conversation - evidently meaning the
final exchange - occurred at about 9:25 or 9:26.
“This testimony creates a problem for the official story.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s spokesman, in explaining why
the Pentagon was not evacuated before it was struck, claimed
that ‘[t]he Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft
was coming our way.’
The 9/11 Commission claimed that
there was no warning about an unidentified aircraft heading
towards Washington until 9:36 and hence only ‘one or two
minutes’ before the Pentagon was struck at 9:38. Mineta’s
account, however, says that Cheney knew about an approaching
aircraft more than 10 minutes earlier. There would have been
over 12 minutes for the Pentagon to be evacuated.
“Mineta’s account also seems to suggest that Cheney had
issued stand-down orders. Mineta himself did not make this
allegation, saying instead that he assumed that ‘the orders’
were to have the plane shot down. But besides the fact that
that interpretation does not fit what actually happened -
the aircraft was not shot down - it would make the story
unintelligible: The question whether the orders still stood
would not make sense unless they were orders to do something
unexpected - not to shoot the aircraft down.
By omitting Mineta’s testimony
and stating that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until almost
10:00, the 9/11 Commission implied that Cheney could not
have given a stand-down order to allow an aircraft to strike
“The lie about Cheney’s entry into the PEOC was also
important to the controversy over whether the US military
shot down Flight 93. The 9/11 Commission, simply ignoring a
vast amount of evidence that the military did so, supported
the official claim that it did not.
The Commission provided this
support by claiming that Cheney, having not arrived at the
PEOC until almost 10:00, did not issue the shoot-down order
until after 10:10 - which would have been seven or more
minutes after Flight 93 had crashed (at 10:03).
But in addition to the evidence
that Cheney had been in the PEOC since about 9:15, we also
have evidence - including statements from Richard Clarke and
Colonel Robert Marr, the head of NORAD’s northeast sector (NEADS)
- that Cheney’s shoot-down order was issued well before
“The 9/11 Commission’s obvious lies about Cheney’s
activities give reason to suspect that it, under the
leadership of Philip Zelikow, was trying to conceal Cheney’s
responsibility for the Pentagon strike and the downing of
VI. Did Members of the Bush-Cheney
Administration Have Reasons to Desire the Attacks of 9/11?
“Besides having the means and
opportunity to orchestrate the events of 9/11 and their
subsequent cover-up, high officials in the Bush-Cheney
administration would also have had motives.
The Grand Chessboard,
had said that establishing military bases in Central Asia
would be crucial for maintaining ‘American primacy,’ partly
because of the huge oil reserves around the Caspian Sea. But
American democracy, he added, ‘is inimical to imperial
Brzezinski, explaining that the
public had ‘supported America’s engagement in World War II
largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack
on Pearl Harbor,’ suggested that Americans today would
support the needed military operations in Central Asia only
‘in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived
direct external threat.’
"Support for these operations was generated by 9/11 plus the
claim by the Bush-Cheney administration that the attacks had
been planned in Afghanistan by Osama bin Laden - a claim for
which it refused to provide any proof.
“A more specific motivation was provided by the ‘pipeline
war.’ The Bush-Cheney administration supported - as had the
Clinton-Gore administration until 1999 - UNOCAL’s plan to
build an oil-and-gas pipeline through Afghanistan, but the
Taliban, being unable to provide sufficient security, had
become regarded as an obstacle.
In a meeting in Berlin in July
2001, representatives of the Bush-Cheney administration,
trying to get the Taliban to share power with other
factions, reportedly gave them an ultimatum: ‘Either you
accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a
carpet of bombs.’
When the Taliban refused, the
Americans reportedly said that ‘military action against
Afghanistan would go ahead... before the snows started
falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the
“Given the fact that the attacks on New York and Washington
occurred on September 11, the U.S. military had time to get
logistically ready to begin the attack on Afghanistan on
Some key members of the Bush-Cheney administration -
including Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney himself - had in the late 1990s
been active members of an organization, the Project for the
New American Century (PNAC), that advocated attacking Iraq
to remove Saddam Hussein, establish a strong military
presence, and control the oil.
Rebuilding America's Defenses, released late in 2000, reiterated the idea of a
permanent military presence in the Gulf region, saying that
the ‘unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification’ but ‘the need for a substantial American
force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the
regime of Saddam Hussein.’
“Immediately upon taking office, the Bush administration -
two former members have revealed - was intent on
attacking Iraq. Then in 2003, after its war in Afghanistan,
the administration used 9/11 as a pretext for attacking
Iraq, partly by suggesting that Saddam was involved in the
attacks, partly by playing on the American people’s sense,
created by 9/11, of being vulnerable to a major attack from
“Increased Military Spending:
A second possible motive was
provided by PNAC’s more general goal of further increasing
America’s military superiority to be able to achieve global
domination. This goal had already been asserted in the draft
of the ‘Defense Planning Guidance’ written in 1992 by Wolfowitz and Libby under the guidance of Cheney, who was
completing his tenure as secretary of defense.
(In an essay that was entered
into the Congressional Record, this draft was portrayed as
an early version of Cheney’s ‘Plan... to rule the world.’)
“In 2000, Wolfowitz and Libby were listed as participants in
the project to produce PNAC’s Rebuilding America’s Defenses,
in which this goal showed up again.
This document also contained an
idea perhaps derived from Brzezinski’s book: After saying
that the desired Pax Americana ‘must have a secure
foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence’ and
that such preeminence will require a technological
transformation of the US military, it adds that this process
of transformation will ‘likely be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl
“When 9/11 came, it was immediately treated as ‘the Pearl
Harbor of the 21st century,’ as President Bush reportedly
called it that very night. It was also characterized as, in
Bush’s words, ‘a great opportunity,’ with Rumsfeld adding
that 9/11 created ‘the kind of opportunities that World War
II offered, to refashion the world.’ This idea then showed
up in The National Security Strategy of the United States of
America, issued by the Bush administration in September
2002, which brazenly said: ‘The events of September 11, 2001
opened vast, new opportunities.’
“A central dimension of the desired technological
transformation of the military is the weaponization of
space, euphemistically called ‘Missile Defense.’ In January
of 2001, the Commission to Assess U.S. National Security
Space Management and Organization, which was chaired by
Rumsfeld, published its report.
Speaking of the need for massive
funding for the U.S. Space Command, the
asked whether such funding would occur only after a ‘Space
“On the evening of 9/11, Rumsfeld held a press conference.
In attendance was Senator Carl Levin, the chair of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, who was asked this
question: ‘Senator Levin, you and other Democrats in
Congress have voiced fear that you simply don’t have enough
money for the large increase in defense that the Pentagon is
seeking, especially for missile defense... Does this sort of
thing convince you that an emergency exists in this country
to increase defense spending... ?’
appropriated an additional $40 billion for the Pentagon and
much more later, with few questions asked."
Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense on September 11, 2001
VII. Summation - The 9/11 Attacks as
Acts of Treason
“The facts recited above
constitute prima facie evidence that the named individuals -
U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. Vice President Richard
B. Cheney, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld -
and other John and Jane Does are independently and jointly
guilty of Treason against these United States under Article
III (3) of the U.S. Constitution, because:
“The attacks of 9/11, as
portrayed in the official account, could not have
succeeded if standard operating procedures between the
FAA and NORAD had been followed. The Pentagon, under the
leadership of Donald Rumsfeld, has provided three
mutually inconsistent accounts of NORAD’s response,
which means that at least two of them are false.
Moreover, the third account,
articulated by the 9/11 Commission, is contradicted by a
wide range of facts, including evidence that the FAA had
notified NORAD in a timely fashion. There must have been
stand-down orders, and these could have come only from
the highest levels of the Pentagon and the White House.
exists that the collapses of the
Twin Towers and
Building 7 were instances of controlled demolition. But
al-Qaeda operatives could not have obtained the needed
access to the buildings to plant the explosives and
would not have ensured that the buildings come straight
The controlled demolition,
therefore, had to be the work of insiders. That
President Bush was one of those insiders is suggested by
the fact that his brother and cousin were principals in
the company in charge of WTC security. Complicity at the
highest levels of the federal government is also
indicated by the removal of evidence (the collapsed
steel), which is normally a federal offense.
Finally, if the airplane
strikes could have occurred only with the consent of the
president and the secretary of defense (as suggested in
the previous point), the coordination of these strikes
with the demolition of the buildings implies their
involvement in the latter as well.
“Overwhelming evidence also
exists for the conclusion that the attack on the
Pentagon was an inside job. That the official story
could not be true is evident from many facts:
the choice of the west wing as
the impossibility of a commercial airliner’s
coming back to Washington undetected and hitting the
Pentagon unless permitted
the lack of physical
evidence consistent with an attack by a Boeing 757
That the strike was an
inside job is implied by the falsity of the official
story, the evidence that the strike was made by a
military aircraft, the removal of evidence, and the
government’s refusal to release videos of the strike.
This operation could hardly have been planned without
the involvement of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.
“Complicity at the highest
levels of the federal government is also indicated by
President Bush’s remaining at the school after it was
evident - given the truth of the official account - that
the United States was experiencing a surprise attack.
This behavior makes sense only if Bush and his lead
Secret Service agent knew that there would be no attack
on the school.
“The complicity of Vice
President Cheney in the attack on the Pentagon and the
downing of Flight 93 is implied by the testimony of
Secretary Mineta in conjunction with the false claims of
the 9/11 Commission, under the guidance of
administration insider Philip Zelikow, as to when Cheney
went to the PEOC and when he issued the shoot-down
“The conclusion from the
evidence that members of the Bush administration
orchestrated the attacks of 9/11 is reinforced by the
fact that they had some huge projects - prosecuting wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq and obtaining funding to
accelerate the technological transformation of the
military - that would likely be possible only in the
event of “a new Pearl Harbor.”
“On the basis of this and other
evidence, the conclusion that the Bush-Cheney administration
was complicit in the 9/11 attacks has been reached by many
Americans, including intellectuals and former military
officers. It is time for an independent official
investigation into this evidence."
This memorandum is based upon the best
public research resources presently available.
It is presented not as a full treatment
of the subject but as merely a brief summary pointing to the
existence of sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant the
appointment of an independent prosecutor.
My Observation of LAX Security Events on 9/11
by an Upper Management LAX Official
“I was employed in upper management
LAX involved with security in the APO (Air Port Operations -
where the planes are, not the passengers). I will not otherwise
identify myself in this statement, since I, for both personal
and professional reasons, need to remain anonymous.
But I will give as much detail as
possible about security-related events in the APO that I
overheard on September 11, 2001, and will also suggest ways in
which my account could be corroborated.
“’Security’ in the APO involves the CHP, LAWA PD, LAPD, and the
FBI, herein referred to as ‘Security’ (but the CHP was not in
proximity to me during the period my account covers).
“As on other days, there was
‘chatter’ on LAX Security walkie-talkies, so what Security was
saying could easily be heard. On some of the walkie-talkies I
could overhear both sides of the conversations, on others only
one. I do not know who was at the other end of the
walkie-talkies, but I can only assume that it was LAX dispatch
“While there, I observed and heard the following:
“At first, LAX Security was very upset because at that time it
seemed to Security that none of the Air Traffic Controllers (ATCs)
tracking the hijacked airliners had notified NORAD as required.
Security was well aware that LAX was a target and Emergency SOP
were already in progress in that there was discussion of
evacuating the airport.
“More chatter revealed that the ATCs had notified NORAD, but
that NORAD had not responded because it had been ‘ordered to
stand down.’ This report made Security even more upset, so they
tried to find out who had issued that order. A short time later
the word came down that the order had come ‘from the highest
level of the White House.’ This seemed inappropriate, so
Security made attempts for more details and clarification, which
was not resolved in my presence.
“3 planes were grounded and swapped out in Atlanta, Georgia,
simply because they did not pass the routine pre-flight
inspection checklist. Those planes were found to be fully loaded
with automatic weapons. LAX Security surmised that could only
have been accomplished by Maintenance, the Caterers, but, in
their view, most likely by ‘House Keeping.’
“LAX Security believed that the terrorists did not board the
planes through the passenger terminals, but rather by similar
means, i.e. via House Keeping. Other airports were mentioned,
but I was unable to get it all down. Therefore, I don’t have an
accurate accounting for the status and location of the other
“Another piece of information that I overheard was that
Pentagon had been hit by a rocket.
“There was also a radio station identifying itself as LAX Radio,
from which the following was heard:
“There were 11 planes and 11 targets. But at the time only 10 of
the targets were mentioned:
the Sears Tower
the Trans America Bldg.
Air Force One - ‘if it
could be found.’
“Two fighter jets had been scrambled and had successfully shot
down a hijacked airliner over Pennsylvania. The point of
deployment of the fighter jets was also mentioned, but I can’t
remember the name of the military base.
"Points of origin mentioned included Newark, Atlanta, and other
locations, but it was confusing to me in that I couldn’t
determine if they were with respect to hijacked planes or
fighter jets being scrambled. Unfortunately the names of these
airports were not all familiar to me or it would have been
easier for me to account for them.
“As I was leaving there was an order to evacuate the airport.
“In 2001 and 2002 I tried to notify the media of the events at
LAX, but they made it clear they were not interested."
“I can think of four ways
in which my account of what I heard could be corroborated:
“LAWA PD, LAPD, and FBI
records will reveal the names of the security officers on
duty in the APO during the time of the attacks.
“I believe the head of LAX
Security in the APO at that time was Captain Gray. He should
be able to confirm the fact that my account reflects what
happened that morning.
“The audio recordings of
radio transmissions at LAX would reveal the comments of all
the Security officers and LAX dispatch/command.
“The audio recording of the
LAX Radio broadcast would reveal what was broadcast on 911.
“Note: Items 3 and 4 would reveal if
I have inadvertently confused information attained from LAX
Security with information received from LAX Radio. (For example,
I believe I heard the comment about a rocket hitting the
Pentagon during the walkie-talkie conversations, but it is
possible that I heard it later on the radio.)”
End of Memorandum to the U.S. Congress
Recent evidence that has emerged pointing to the high-level
involvement of operatives of Israel and the
service, Mossad, in the false flag events of 9/11 does not alter the
liability of Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld for prosecution
for treason and for murder.
Back to The Bush Impeachment Movement