EIR Investigative Journalist Mark Burdman -- Was His Death By Suicide Or A Murder Made To Appear As A Suicide?

"I have been noticing , as you have, the growing opposition , in Britain, in the United States, to this Iraq war. Last night, something occurred to me that I think is very relevant. I think the crowd that wants this Iraq war may well do something drastic in the coming days to regain the momentum. Some very big terrorism, perhaps. It is all very well that there are these challenges to the Iraq war. But we should not lose sight of the fact that there are powerful people in Washington, who pulled off this September 11 last year. They have their Plan A, which is now in trouble. But they also have their Plan B, Plan C, Plan D. They may well have been thinking until very recently that their coup that began on September 11 was going very well. But suddenly, they have to re-think. And I think they are desperate, and capable of a lot. (EIR, August 23, 2002)

- Journalist Mark Burdman (Executive Intelligence Review)
Reporting on comments made by an "influential British political figure" regarding his belief that 9-11 was perpetrated by a rogue network within the U.S. Military Intelligence complex.

Roughly two years after printing the aforesaid comment in an article he'd written for Executive Intelligence Review Mark Burdman was dead, the victim of an apparent suicide. However, one must also wonder given Burdman's expose in the following article on Dick Cheney and the Project For A New American Century, if his death may not have actually been a murder made to appear as a suicide.

There are very powerful and dark forces within the U.S. Federal Government that have the capability of murdering anyone, and through their coercive tactics seeing to it that the truth in regard to such murders remains hidden. Such coercion has been the cornerstone of the U.S. Congress and Medias' propagation of the official and completely fabricated version of the attacks on 9-11, as well as the black propaganda campaign known as the war on terror, which has been used to destroy the U.S. Bill of Rights and American freedom.

Hitler once stated that the more often you tell a lie, the more people will believe it. No organization has been more definitive proof of this than the FBI, whose manipulation of the public through its control over the mainstream media continues to be problematic in its treasonous deception of the American people. And in spite of such machinations, the fact remains, that the FBI's complete disregard for the protected rights of all American citizens, and abject demonization of those whom the FBI conducts COINTELPRO operations against, will eventually lead to its dissolution.

If the FBI is operating illegally and attempting to justify its illegal operations (as the FBI always does), this in and of itself becomes even further reason for the Bureau to be abolished. The FBI's demonization campaign against this author is so replete with deception and precedent setting violations of both the rights of my family and self, that the Bureau is now in uncharted waters, having conned the public into believing its machinations, while never answering specific questions in regard to how it obtains its information, or the illegal actions which the Bureau continues to perpetrate in efforts to manipulate public opinion.

The FBI has become as aggressive as it has in this particular situation, because it the Bureau itself who has attempted to justify a precedent setting illegal fishing expedition which has ironically enough served to expose the Nazi origins of the NSA's Signals Intelligence operations, and brain fingerprinting of the entire U.S. population. Something which the bureau is obviously taking quite a bit of heat for behind the scenes.

The NSA's Signals Intelligence operations, and in particular its remote neural monitoring of the American people without their knowledge or consent, must eventually be exposed in a court of law, so that the American people themselves can be made aware of the extent to which agencies like the FBI and NSA are violating both their 4TH Amendment rights; as well as basic human rights under the Geneva Convention and Nuremberg Code.

This must be done at some point in the future, since at the moment there is absolutely no longer any constitutional rule of law in the United States of America. And the FBI and NSA are two of the most imminent threats to the sovereignty of the American people as the result of such complete and utter lawlessness.

Moreover, in order to cover up for their crimes, these agencies are trying many of us in the court of public opinion, because they cannot be challenged as they would be in a court of law.

Moreover, these agencies would never have attempted such egregious violations as they are at present, were it not for the Patriot Act; which is allowing the FBI and its Nazi brethren to decimate the inherent rights of any American citizens of their choosing.

For many of us, the attacks by these Intel agencies have become a matter of economics; not principle, since their attacks are based not on the law, but instead, on the cash register and the amount of money that they have already expended in their criminal conspiracies regarding those whom they illegally target.

The FBI continues to use its "useful idiots" to intimidate those whom it cannot prosecute, in further efforts to break these people physically, mentally, spiritually and financially. However, for many of us, the Bureau has been so criminal and equally vicious in its assaults, that we can never take them seriously as law enforcement. That is not to say that we don't take the FBI very seriously as a dangerous criminal enterprise, which the FBI has always been. And it is with such consideration that we document the FBI's crimes, including its obvious enough attempts in which to covertly murder us.

Furthermore, what continues to amaze many of those who've been targeted for such illegal tactics is the American public's own gullibility where the FBI is concerned. Since if the FBI had a decent case on any of those whom they are illegally targeting, there'd be no reason for the bureau to resort to the black propaganda smear campaigns that this Nazi run organization is presently propagating. Once again, the FBI will, as it always has, use its smoke and mirror "MO" in which to obscure some of the most outrageous violations of the Bill of Rights ever documented, while utilizing a cadre of "useful idiots" in which to muddy the waters even further.

For example, those whom the FBI would coerce into lying for it, have as little credibility as the FBI itself.

And given its total complicity in the cover up in regard to the attacks on 9-11, it is time that the FBI be forced to answer to the public as they have never done before. However, if the public continues to allow such an organization as the FBI to steamroll them as the Bureau has done for the past Century, then they have themselves to blame for not speaking up in defense of their rights.

This author has no intention of ever acknowledging the FBI as anything but the criminal and treasonous organization that it is, and I will go to my death promulgating their crimes, and complicity in the destruction of the United States of America.

The FBI relies on its fear tactics in which to control us as a nation. However, all the Bureau can do with those who don't fear it is to resort to its demonization and dehumanizing of such people. Further proof that this agency does not operate legally or humanely, and will eventually suffer the consequences for having violated such basic tenets of human rights. And regardless of how convincingly the FBI manages to con the American public.


Did the following article cost investigative journalist Mark Burdman his life?

Cheney's Role In 9/11 Put On
Center Stage By British MP
By Mark Burdman
Executive Intelligence Review.
9-19-03
For the first time, a prominent British political figure has aired his suspicions, that the group around U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney may have intentionally caused, or allowed to happen, the mega-terrorism in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, to set into motion an era of neo-imperial wars.

Labour Party Member of Parliament Michael Meacher wrote a major feature focusing on Cheney's Project for a New American Century grouping, in the London Guardian on Sept. 6. Meacher had resigned in June as Environment Minister, a post he held in Tony Blair's government for six years. This Summer's political wars in Britain, as EIR forecast they would, are drawing ever closer to Cheney.

This is the context in which Meacher took Blair to task for subordinating Britain's interests to Cheney and his neo-conservative gang in Washington. Ever since Lyndon LaRouche first affirmed, early in the morning of 9/11, that the attacks were an "inside job," it has been taboo in Britain to publicly discuss this possibility, especially as Blair's Britain joined in the neo-conservatives' wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, becoming the Cheney-acs' main prop overseas. And although Meacher's polemic narrows the motive of Cheney et al. to an oil grab, his intervention is timely.

On Sept. 7, just ahead of the second anniversary of 9/11, London was the scene of huge "anti-terror exercises," including contingency plans or the mass evacuation of the city. During that week, there was heavy police presence and Londoners were very nervous. One European strategist warned EIR Sept. 9, that London is the most likely target for a new act of mega-terrorism. But a London insider cautioned EIR, on the same day, that Blair and his minions are determined to stoke alarm, to "justify" his war policies and to divert attention from his political woes. Those woes are bound to get worse.

The Lord Hutton inquiry into the July 17 death of weapons expert Dr. David Kelly had produced startling revelations by Sept. 8, blowing apart the case Blair made last year for war against Iraq. One informed source affirmed Sept. 8: "This is only the beginning, and when the inquiry resumes next Monday [Sept. 15], things are going to get a lot tougher, when the process of cross-examining leading officials begins."

Other Labourites are joining the attack on Blair, including former International Development Secretary Clare Short, and former Leader of the House of Commons and former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook. On Sept. 8, Cook drew gasps from MPs, when he blasted Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon for having ignored the reservations of his own Defense Intelligence taff (DIS), about the fraudulent September 2002 dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) issued by Blair's 10 Downing Street. Hoon was then jeered, when he tried to pass off responsibility for the dossier o Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC).

The next day, it was revealed that Hoon had given misleading evidence to the House of Commons Intelligence and Security Committee investigating the dossier in July, flatly denying that DIS experts had expressed such concerns. It is widely assumed that Hoon will soon bite the dust, closely following the Aug. 29 resignation of Downing Street chief spin doctor Alastair Campbell. In Sept. 8, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw came into the Hutton inquiry ire, as documents were released, showing his role in bringing Kelly's same into the public light, as the source for a BBC report that intelligence experts had regarded the September 2002 dossier as "sexed up."

Kelly's death followed shortly after his name was made public. It also came out that Hoon had played a role in "sexing up" that dossier, urging that references to Iraqi WMDs be strengthened and demanding a "killer paragraph" to make the case against Iraq stronger.

A U.K. intelligence expert told EIR Sept. 8, that these eruptions are creating a fertile environment, in which the issues Meacher has raised can now be "openly debated and considered.... The Hutton inquiry, and other factors, have raised enormous questions about why Tony Blair, in reality, wanted this Iraqi weapons dossier, and that, in turn, is focusing attention on the motives of the administration in Washington,
in starting the war in Iraq."

This bad news for Blair in Britain bodes ill for Cheney and Co., and all sorts of surprises may emerge. How nervous certain people are, is becoming clear from the wild attacks on Meacher's article: by the American Embassy in London; by Lord Conrad Black's Sunday Telegraph; and by Rupert Murdoch's Times.

'The Truth May Be a Great Deal Murkier'
Meacher's Guardian article was entitled, "This War on Terrorism Is Bogus," with the sub-title, "The 9/11 attacks gave the U.S. an ideal retext to use force to secure its global domination."

He began, that whereas "massive attention" has been paid to Britain's excuse for going to war, "far too little attention has focused on why the U.S. went to war; and that throws light on British motives too.

"The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan was a natural first tep in launching a global war against terrorism.

Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the U.S. and U.K. governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However his theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier."

He went on: "We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now Vice President), Donald Rumsfeld (Defense Secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), JebBush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of taff). The document, entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses,' was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

"The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says 'while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.' "

Meacher noted that the PNAC blueprint supported an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the United States must discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership
or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." This early-1990s Pentagon Guidance Document," a.k.a. "the Wolfowitz doctrine," prescribes pre-emptive military action, and implicitly, pre-emptive nuclear strikes, against potential challenges to an American or Anglo-American empire.

Cheney, then Defense Secretary in President H.W. Bush's Administration, supported this outrage, which was nixed then by senior Administration igures, including the President. With Bush Jr., the policy has been implemented.

In detailing the September 2000 PNAC blueprint, Meacher noted that it refers to allies such as the U.K., as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership." Further, the blueprint also calls for "regime change" in China, and advocates imperial control of space and cyberspace, and development of new biological weapons. "FinallyÑwritten a year before 9/11Ñit pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a 'worldwide command and control system.'

This is a blueprint for U.S. world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways."

Why Did U.S. Air Security Stand Down?
Meacher next presented his views, of what happened two years ago; EIR finds them worth reporting, including his attributed sources: "First, it is clear the U.S. authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the U.S. of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, Sept. 16, 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

"It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a U.S. national intelligence council report noted that 'al-Qaeda suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House.'

"Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the U.S. for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with bin Laden (BBC, Nov. 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, Sept. 15, 2001).

"Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When U.S. agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the Sept. 11 mission (Times, Nov. 3, 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI.

One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20, 2002). "All of this makes it all the more astonishingÑon the war on terrorism perspectiveÑthat there was such slow reaction on Sept. 11 itself. "The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8:20 a.m., and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:06 a.m. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the U.S. Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles from Washington, D.C., until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. Why not? ... Between September 2000 and June 2001 the U.S. military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, Aug. 13, 2002).

It is a U.S. legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate. "Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could U.S. air security operations have been deliberately stood down on Sept. 11? If so, why, and on whose authority?"

Meacher affirmed that "the catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called 'war on terrorism' is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider U.S. strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: 'To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on Sept. 11" (Times, July 17, 2002).

Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time magazine, May 13, 2002).

"In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11.

A report prepared for the U.S. government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that 'the U.S. remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East.' Submitted to Vice President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the U.S., 'military intervention' was necessary (Sunday Herald, Oct. 6, 2002)."

Errors of Judgment Meacher reported that "the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the U.S. into 'tomorrow's dominant force' is likely to be a long one in the absence of 'some catastrophic and catalyzing eventÑlike a new Pearl Harbor.' " He concluded with the charge that "the 'global war on terrorism' has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agendaÑthe U.S. goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force, command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project."

Important as is the publication of this charge, from Tony Blair's own party in Parliament, to narrow the "Cheney project" to a physiocratic grab for scarce energy supplies fails to grasp the "nature of the beast."

Cheney's neo-conservative faction is the modern-day embodiment of the fascist-synarchist forces, that threatened both the Britain and the United States in the 1940s. Pulling his strings are powerful financier forcesÑdescendants of those private banking families and financial interests who brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany, and supported Mussolini's dictatorship in Italy. Their aim now, as then, is to establish a world empire that would salvage a crisis-ridden financial system, and eliminate the American humanist-republican tradition associated with Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt.

LaRouche has demonstrated that 9/11 was a "Reichstag Fire," allowing for dictatorial measures at home, and for Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations pitting Western nations against Islam, and potentially China.

The game is much more dangerous than Meacher has described it. But with publication of his article, the "Reichstag Fire" issueÑand crucially, that of the relation between the Cheney's gang's desires and Tony Blair's actions as British Prime MinisterÑis out in the open.
any