HOME   INDEX OF SEPT 11   ARTICLES      DISINFO INDEX    BACK TO PAGE 2    PAGE 3 OF 4

 

Many people wouldn’t bother to read the fine print and if they did, many wouldn't  have the confidence to be sure that they had understood it properly, when Russell is confidently telling them that it amounts to Rumsfeld taking executive control of interception procedures.

 

In the following deconstruction, we’ll see that the particular section of the document quoted by Russell actually means the exact opposite of what he attributes to it.

 

Hoffman’s version of this sneaky disinformation is here. These kinds of regulations are not easy for most people to read, which is presumably why Hoffman chose this as the platform to launch his re-invention of Cheney’s spin. But the following explanation may make it easier for you to read the documents yourself and work out what they mean and how Hoffman and Russell have twisted this.

 

Note this from Russell’s article

 

[[This CJCSI states that "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be

notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward

requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."]]

 

Russell’s claim that this means that personal approval from Rumsfeld is required to intercept a plane simply isn’t true. Somehow he forgot about this bit.

 

[[with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d]]

 

“Immediate responses”  obviously includes routine intercept procedures. They are defined here by “reference d”.

 

And what’s reference d ? If we scroll towards the bottom of the document we find it.

 

[[DOD 3025.15, 18 February 1997 “Military assistance to civil authorities”.]]

 

So things which qualify for exemption on the basis of “immediate responses” are still defined by the 1997 regulation, which Russell agrees did not give the Defense Secretary executive control over  interceptions. This is contrary to the claim by Russell that the June 2001 changes mean that since that date [[Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to act ]]

 

While its understandable that some readers might be confused or intimidated into accepting Russel’s interpretation, through finding it difficult to directly understand the regulations, it’s difficult to see how anyone could have thought up Russell’s interpretation to begin with, in the absence of a conscious desire to spin in this direction.

 

Hoffman makes the same claim as Russell, but takes more care to spin against the deconstruction I have just offered. Presumably anticipating that some people might notice what I just described, Hoffman wrote

 

[[CJCSI 3610.01A, dated June 1, 2001, required that all requests for asistance in hijackings be approved by the Secretary of Defense. It had an exception for emergencies that would seem to give commanders in the field autonomy in ordering intercepts. However, that exception did not cover requests for "potentially lethal assistance", the kind required to respond to the attack.]]

 

Hoffman provides no evidence for the assertion in the last sentence of this quote. And the assertion is clearly false. Exceptions are authorized by reference d. Reference d is the 1997 regulation. Therefore, the exceptions haven't been changed since 1997. This can be also be confirmed by scrolling to section 7 of the document headed “summary of changes”, which don’t include anything claimed by Russell and Hoffman.

 

[[ 7. Summary of changes.

 

A. Unmanned vehicles (UAV,ROV) added to description of possible derelict airborne objects.

B. Statutory authority for Responding to aircraft Piracy enclosure removed and added to reference list.

C. In various places throughout the document, “USELEMNORAD” was replaced with “NORAD”

D. FAA order 76104J 3 November 1988. *Special military operations* was added as a reference. ]]

 

The attempt to portray this as a regulation making interception dependent upon executive authority is disinformation.

 

Now lets see how truly crummy this disinformation attempt is.

 

Note this from Russell’s article dated March 31 2004.

 

[[Jim Hoffman has discovered a document…]]

 

And from Hoffman’s own article in relation to it.

 

[[The June 1st order apparently gave Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld the legal authority (if not the de facto authority) to prevent intercepts of Flights 11, 175, and 77 by just doing nothing.]]

 

The two quotes collectively create the impression that Hoffman has discovered a June 1 2001 change which was previously unnoticed, handing authorization to scramble fighter jets to Rumsfeld personally from that date on. Let’s remind ourselves again of the exact wording of this  “discovered document” as quoted by Russell’s article , which is recommended as source material by Hoffman.

 

[[This CJCSI states that "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be

notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward

requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."]]

 

Now lets look at an extract from the TENC article exposing Cheney’s spin, remembering that it is dated Nov 20, 2001 and that Hoffman liked it so much that he plagiarized much of the substance of it.

 

[[A Defense Department manual makes the same point:

 

"In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses,...forward requests for DOD [Department of Defense] assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."

--CJCSI 3610.01A, 1 June 2001  ]]

 

So much for “discovering a new document “.   2 1/2 years before Hoffman and Russell, TENC quoted this exact same document to demonstrate the routine nature of interception procedures, and how they do not require executive authority - as clearly stated in the regulation.

 

And let’s remember what Hoffman himself wrote, when playing the other side in plagiarising that research.

 

[[Cheney, in an interview with Tim Russert on NBC, indicated that the President made the decision that day to scramble fighter jets. This is very unusual, as it is contrary to standard operating procedures ]]

 

Having established what the document actually says, and also the fact that it’s exposure to researchers was old news, let’s consider this claim from Russell.

 

[[it requires that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing intercept orders. Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to act. ]]

 

For anyone who somehow managed to initially get that impression from the document, common sense should have warned them to consider the question more carefully.

 

Interception is such a routine procedure that it is inconceivable that the Secretary of Defense would have his permission sought every time a plane needed to be intercepted. It’s equivalent to suggesting that the police commissioner would be personally contacted for approval every time a police officer wanted to question a suspect. Hoffman knows enough to be aware of this, as shown here  from one of his articles playing the other side.

 

[[It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. 1 Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times.2 In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times.]] 

 

And Rumsfeld has nothing better to do with his time than make himself constantly available to handle this volume of requests, which could occur at any time, most of which are in relation to trivial incidents ? Since when does the highest official in any bureaucracy be put in the position of having to personally approve every application of something which is “standard operating procedure”?

 

Remember that the regulatory change falsely claimed by Russell and Hoffman to make interception dependent on personal approval from Rumsfeld is still in place. This means that for the last  4 1/2 years Rumsfeld would have been flooded with these time wasting, trivial requests, turning himself into a pointless rubber stamping clerk for his field commanders.

 

To further emphasise that point, let’s examine some extracts from the documentation linked by Hoffman in his above quote. From the link numbered 1

 

[[At a NORAD operations center in Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs, Colo., a noncommissioned officer listens to conversations on the FAA network from all over the United States, said Maj. Douglas Martin, NORAD spokesman.

 

"If he hears anything that indicates difficulty in the skies, we begin the staff work to scramble," Martin said.]]

 

He doesn't say anything about needing to contact Rumsfeld.

 

[[From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said…]]

 

And Rumsfeld had to make a personal decision on every one of them ? 46 times a month ?

 

[[...No one has been shot out of the sky since Sept. 11, he said; for that, an order must come from President Bush or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. ]]

 

This is the only part of the article which mentions executive authority. Note the clear distinction, as stated by Martin, between what has to be done to initiate a scramble, and what has to be done to initiate a shoot down. “Staff” initiate scrambles (46 times a month on average.)  Rumsfeld or Bush can authorize a shoot down. Exactly the distinction which Cheney attempted to confuse in Sept 2001 and which TENC sorted out in Nov 2001 , and which Hoffman plagiarized years later.

 

In summary:

 

· A correct reading of the CJCSI document reveals it to mean the opposite of what Hoffman and Russell attribute to it.

 

· The quoted regulation - claimed as a Hoffman discovery—had already been quoted for its correct purpose by TENC 2 1/2 years earlier as part of an article, the substance of which was plagiarized by Hoffman for use on a different part of his site.

 

· Hoffman and Russell’s interpretation of the CJCSI document contradicts common sense.

 

· Documentation about the process of aviation security since Sept 11 -used by Hoffman himself in a different part of his site - contradicts their interpretation of the CJCSI document.

 

Again, we see that Hoffman plays both sides. In one part of his site he plagiarizes TENC’s work to raise his profile as a Sept 11 “researcher”. But through the back door, putting on his other face, Hoffman attempts a cleverly disguised revival of the Cheney spin that executive authorization is required to scramble fighter jets.

 

We could describe Hoffman by  quoting exactly what TENC says about Cheney.

 

[[he created the impression that the military would have needed executive authorization to scramble fighter jets to intercept American Airlines Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon.]] (TENC’s word “presidential” changed to “executive”. )

CONTINUE