TERRORIST GHOST ATTACK IS IMMINENT : WE ARE NOT SAFE

SAFETY ADVISORY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

By : David Petraeus, Director, Central Intelligence Agency

Last week, our Nation marked a significant milestone with the 10th Anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. We can be grateful that we escaped the event without incident. Thanks to the tireless efforts of State and Federal law enforcement, America foiled any attempt to mar the memorial ceremony with violence.

As a Nation, we have come closer this year to defeating terror than at any time since 9/11. We have killed Osama bin Laden. We have al-Qaeda on the run. And we have created a culture of security that keeps Americans safe from terror.

Despite these encouraging developments, we cannot let our guard down. While the Central Intelligence Agency understands that Americans simply want to live without fear, we cannot yet afford to quell the alarm.

In fact, we regret to inform the public that al-Qaeda has unleashed a frightening new weapon: Ghosts.

Generally, we here at the Central Intelligence Agency do not speak directly to the American people. Circumstances, however, mandate that we reveal critical new information that impacts all Americans. Public safety is acutely in danger, and we must advise appropriate measures to cope with the risk.

Today's threat is elusive. It does not involve bombs, guns or gas. It does not involve suicide attackers. It does not even involve living human beings. No, it involves something much more frightening: The vengeful spirits of slain al-Qaeda leaders returned from the grave.

This is not a hoax. Our agents have credible, reliable and confirmed reports that al-Qaeda intends to make supernatural war against New York City, especially the Ground Zero site. According to top agents, it appears that the angry ghosts of al-Qaeda leaders are currently on their way from the spirit world to wreak havoc on Lower Manhattan. Agents also inform us that these spirits have recruited ghouls, goblins, wraiths, specters, poltergeists and even zombies to spread fear in New York.

Understandably, we are taking these threats extremely seriously. Supernatural warfare cannot be taken lightly. We have already received initial reports that al-Qaeda ghosts are both extremely scary and difficult to pinpoint. And most disturbingly, intelligence indicates that conventional weaponry is useless against ghosts. Bullets, bombs and airstrikes simply cannot harm these terrifying spirits. After all, ghosts are already dead: Killing them again is no easy matter.

It is not entirely clear how al-Qaeda ghosts will operate. Some experts believe that terror ghosts can manipulate electronics. This poses a devastating threat to the national economy. Ghosts could ostensibly haunt iPads, iPhones, NASDAQ and the internet. Communication and commerce would break down, imperiling a fragile economic recovery.

Just imagine what would happen if an angry al-Qaeda spirit corrupted the Nation's computers? Web browsing, timekeeping, online bill paying, social networking and E-Harmony would collapse. Chaos would follow. It is a horrifying thought.

Worse, intelligence also indicates that ghosts can change cable channels without warning, take over flight controls, scare away workers and terrify small children. Finally, ghosts represent a very real danger to seniors and persons with cardiac difficulty: Seeing a ghost can easily cause heart failure.

In short, we face a serious crisis.

But it is essential to maintain calm. While we acknowledge that al-Qaeda ghosts are certainly scary, we are already taking action against them. In our battles with al-Qaeda, we have learned how to cope with terror. We know how to foil attacks, and supernatural attacks are no different. Put simply, we can defeat anything al-Qaeda throws at us, including ghosts.

Together with military and law enforcement authorities, the CIA is hard at work securing Lower Manhattan against the expected spectral onslaught. Thanks to improved interrogation methods, we have confirmed that the ghosts of Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Mustafa al-Yazid intend to float into the area around Ground Zero within the next 48 hours. We will be ready for them.

Authorities will lock down Lower Manhattan to quarantine the ghosts as soon as they land. Regrettably, these measures will entail some inconvenience for New Yorkers. All citizens will be subject to search and detainment to verify that they have not been haunted by al-Qaeda. And all citizens may be required to surrender their personal property--including their clothing and underwear--for inspection to determine whether a spirit has not hidden within it. After all, we are talking about ghosts. They can easily hide in backpacks, socks, panties, boxer shorts, water bottles and even cell phones.

While we appreciate citizens' concerns for their liberty, dignity and privacy in these matters, we reiterate that security against terrorist ghosts requires strong action. Comprehensive security is the only way to successfully defeat ghosts.

We recognize that New Yorkers simply want to get back to normal after 10 years of terror. But we cannot afford to give up now. We face perhaps the most frightening battle we have yet faced in the War on Terror. We are all afraid of ghosts; but al-Qaeda ghosts are especially bad. Worse, this is no ghost story. This is a specific, credible and confirmed threat.

Still, Americans do not back down. We can defeat terrorist ghosts just as well as living terrorists. We all must refuse to give in to fear. Go to work. Go on vacation. Go to a movie. Go buy a car. Go buy a home. Go about your business as you would any other day. If a ghoul accosts you, tell him you're an American and you are not afraid. Sure, he might haunt you or even steal your handbag, but that is no reason to bend to terror.

We here at the CIA will do our part to keep the public informed as we obtain new reports. Until that time, we advise full cooperation with law enforcement. If you are detained, remember that your sacrifice is absolutely necessary to prevent al-Qaeda from haunting America. You will be released as soon as competent authorities determine that an al-Qaeda ghost has not hidden somewhere in your clothing or on your body.

In this age of heightened security concerns, we all must be prepared to make the occasional sacrifice. If we do not, the ghosts win.

"PLEASE BOMB US," OBAMA PLEADS

NEWS FLASH

Exasperated following months of fruitless partisan gridlock in Washington, President Barack Obama has officially requested foreign aid to reverse America's economic downturn.

"Please bomb us," the President begged world leaders during a live television broadcast.

Noting that a foreign attack or invasion is the only way to divert public attention from a stagnant economy and despicable political infighting in Washington, President Obama took his case to the world stage.

"We cannot create jobs or spur domestic development unless we get the American people to rally against a devious foreign enemy," the President remarked. "I've tried my ass off to make economic changes peacefully, but I've broken my head against the wall one too many times. We need someone to bomb us ASAP."

President Obama observed that Americans need to hate someone other than him in order to balance the budget, reduce unemployment, overhaul health care and curtail spending.

"I've tried to solve our problems by letting the American people hate me," the President explained. "But the simple fact is that the American people need to hate a foreigner in order to really get the economy rolling again. The bottom line, my friends, is that we're never going to get below 9.2% unemployment unless one of you motherfuckers steps up to the plate and bombs our ass. Please, if you care about America, attack one of our naval bases without delay. We've got tons of them all over the world. Take your pick. It's on us."

President Obama appeared confident that his plan would work. He cited historical precedent to support his position.

"Look, FDR did all he could to reduce unemployment in the 1930s with domestic spending. But he didn't really beat the Great Depression until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and people started really hating the Japs. And George W. Bush wasn't going anywhere until Osama bin Laden bombed the World Trade Center and people started really hating Muslims. Once that happened, Bush got to do whatever the hell he wanted. I am confident that if you would be so generous as to launch missiles against a military installation of your choosing, America could easily solve its economic woes."

President Obama insisted that his plan was not just another greedy American power grab. "I understand that many of you may suspect a selfish motive in my request for an attack on us. I assure you, however, that if you bomb us, you, too, will benefit. After all, by bombing us and saving our economy, global markets will strengthen. When the US economy thrives, so does the world economy. Thus, if you bomb us, your economy, too, will improve. And everyone loves good economic times."

"True, we might flatten a couple of your cities or overthrow your government. But all benefits have their price," the President concluded.

President Obama also pointed out that favoritism played no role in his decisionmaking. "America does not discriminate," he said. "While some of you might think that we only go to war with Muslims, brown people or communists, the time for stereotypes is over. We are perfectly willing to allow Caucasians to bomb us, too. We just need somebody to help us out."

Speaking directly to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the President pleaded: "Come on, Angie, blow up one of our air force bases. They're right on your territory. You have no idea how much that would help. Please, I'm begging you."

Despite the President's confidence in his plan, Republican leaders remained unconvinced.

"It wouldn't work," responded Tea Party candidate Michelle Bachmann. "We won't rescue our economy without completely eliminating all government spending and abolishing taxation once and for all. If an enemy attacks us, we'll have to spend money and raise taxes, so I can't support the President's plan."

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney agreed. "No way. If the President drags us into another war, that just means more job-killing regulations. It doesn't matter if we're the ones who get attacked. War means regulations, and regulations kill jobs."

Sarah Palin was more specific in her response to the President's plan. "Nope, wouldn't help," she said. "To fight a war, you need government. And we're not going to solve our problems until we get rid of all government for good."

For their part, world leaders were split on Obama's request. Fidel Castro said he would love to attack the United States, but that he wasn't willing to expose his people to retaliation that would devastate his country.

Vladimir Putin praised the President for his wisdom, but refused to commit Russia to an invasion because he knew war with a foreign enemy would strengthen America, just as Obama predicted.

"Their own economy will kill them. There's no need to hasten that by risking Russian troops," Putin concluded.

Chinese Premier Hu Jintao summarily rejected the President's request. "Absolutely not. If we attack you, we'd never collect all the money you owe us."

As of press time, President Obama still held out hope that other powers--such as Turkey, Uzbekistan or Somalia--might decide to attack the United States.

AL QAEDA SURRENDERS

*BIG NEWS FLASH*

IT'S OFFICIAL : BIN LADEN THROWS IN THE TOWEL; HANDS HIMSELF OVER TO U.S.

Reason, Commerce, Justice & Free Beer has just learned that al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden has "given up the war" against Western imperialism. He handed himself over to U.S. forces stationed in Puerto Rico. "You idiots thought I was in Afghanistan the whole time. All the while I was sunning myself right under your noses. Well, I'm giving up because I just don't feel like fighting anymore, not because you beat me. I need a break."

Mr. bin Laden spoke for al-Qaeda when he said that there was "no point" fighting against the United States any longer. "We keep on killing you and you just keep shopping. No matter how many people we blow up, you never change. What's the point? I'm sick of banging my head against the wall trying to convince you guys that you're not living right. Oh well; I'll sign whatever you want me to sign."

Commanding American general Raymond D. Odierno accepted Mr. bin Laden's surrender. He also demanded that Mr. bin Laden sign a peace treaty with the United States. "We end wars with treaties," explained General Odierno.

Under the treaty--informally named the Chillocothe Protocol of 2009 after a town in Ohio (for no particular reason)--Mr. bin Laden admits that he started the War on Terror and that he lost. He also admits that he is responsible for property damage exceeding $5.00 worldwide. The treaty provides that Mr. bin Laden and al-Qaeda will pay compensation for starting the war, as well as apologize to the San Francisco Fire Department for forcing its members to undergo additional disaster training. Mr. bin Laden further agrees to help Larry Silverstein--owner of the World Trade Center real estate--find a suitable new property for his commercial ventures. In short, Mr. bin Laden promises that he will not be a terrorist anymore. Rather, he promises to meaningfully contribute to the American economy.

For his part, Mr. bin Laden said that it was getting "tiresome" fighting U.S. Forces abroad. "They invaded our homelands, they defiled Mecca and they killed our families with cruise missiles. We tried to hit back at them, but they just keep coming. We wanted to show that they were Western barbarians obsessed with profit and oil. But no matter how many civilians and soldiers we killed, they just kept going to Wal-Mart without fear. You have no idea how frustrating it is to dedicate yourself to terrorism, and after 10 years Americans still aren't afraid. Does Kanye West look scared? How about Tom Brady? Dick Cheney? They're more afraid of the IRS than me. True, I suppose I've made some Americans' lives difficult by forcing them to endure strip searches and long lines at airports, but that wasn't my intention. I wanted to show the Americans that they are wrong about life. I've failed: They still just want to make money, go to the movies, eat fast food, watch Sunday sports broadcasts and purchase homes. Well, I suppose if you can't beat them, might as well join them. I give up. Screw it. Most of them will die of obesity-related illnesses anyway."

American authorities are pleased that Mr. bin Laden has proven so cooperative with U.S demands. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Mr. bin Laden for his "extraordinary efforts to comply with American requirements:" "Mr. bin Laden even agreed to convert to Christianity and celebrate Christmas with the Metropolitan Baltimore Caroling Society. He has agreed to buy Wii home entertainment systems for low-income children in the Bronx. In short, Mr. bin Laden has gone from villain to Santa Claus overnight. What an astonishing turnaround."

Despite Mr. bin Laden's agreement to cooperate with the United States, American authorities worry what his al-Qaeda followers will do now that he has surrendered. Thankfully, many former al-Qaeda operatives--including previously undiscovered "sleeper" agents both in the U.S. and abroad--have voluntarily given up and agreed to convert to Christianity. Like their leader, these operatives agree that fighting the United States is a hopeless cause. Many--including suspected mass murderer Mohammad Zazabi--have even agreed to abandon terrorism and work in the private sector. Mr. Zazabi even said that he was willing to wear an elf costume this Christmas season and hand out free perfume at Macy's in New York City. "If I cannot kill them, I will provide them fragrant waters. I will now show that I, too, can be someone in America," he said.

Hollywood celebrities are overjoyed that al-Qaeda has surrendered. "The War on Terror is over," said Zac Efron. "Let's welcome our new friends into our lives." Mr. Efron said that Disney has already begun planning a musical based on Mr. bin Laden's surrender in which Mr. bin Laden will meet the cast of High School Musical and dance several numbers, including: "I Used to Terrorize, Now I Just Texticize LOLLERS," and sing the solo "Tora Bora No More-A More-A."

Mr. bin Laden is a busier man now than he ever was as al-Qaeda's shadowy leader. He now has a schedule packed with interviews, book signings, university commencement speeches and motivational talks about leadership with Fortune 500 corporate boards. He is even slated to appear on FOX News as a Middle Eastern commentator.

"He knows what he's talking about," said Bill O'Reilly of his new colleague. "I can let bygones be bygones. Osama told me he doesn't like Obama, so he's OK in my boat."

"I am a rational man," Mr. bin Laden said during treaty negotiations. "I know when a cause is hopeless. Americans do not respond to terrorism, so I will not be a terrorist anymore. I'm a result-oriented person; I'm not going to play a losing game. I abandon strategies that don't work. Instead, I will just get with the program and pursue more profitable endeavors."

Mr. bin Laden's remarks about "results," "profit" and "winning strategies" won him kudos from industry leaders nationwide. "Part of winning means giving up on losing," said J. Ferguson Bradworth, CFO of Schluck Pharmaceuticals Co., Inc.

TERROR TRIALS IN NEW YORK : DO WE REALLY CARE ABOUT FAIRNESS?

AN ESSAY

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would try several key al-Qaeda suspects for their alleged role in the 9/11 attacks. That was big news; under President Bush's direction, the Justice Department deferred exclusively to the military for handling so-called "enemy combatants" captured in the "War on Terror." Unlike President Bush, Obama decided to heed the United States Constitution and prosecute these suspects before U.S. civilian courts. After all, these detainees are not "soldiers captured in War" under the Geneva Convention, because al-Qaeda did not sign the treaty. Yet American authorities hold them on American territory for breaking American laws. In such circumstances, there is only one lawful alternative: Try them in domestic courts.

This was a significant step. But the Justice Department announced something even more significant: It would try the suspects in New York.

From a legal perspective, it makes little difference where the sovereign chooses to try a criminal defendant for violating the law. Here, the United States seeks to convict terrorists for plotting to attack the World Trade Center and ultimately destroy it. As long as the sovereign holds the defendant in his realm, he can prosecute him under the ancient principle of "personal jurisdiction over the body." If you are present in a country and you commit a crime there, you can be prosecuted for it in that country--it is very simple.

It also makes sense to try 9/11 conspirators in New York from a practical perspective. In criminal trials, venue is proper when it is easy for witnesses to get to the courthouse. Certain districts have a greater interest in trying a case than others, especially when all the "sources of proof" lie in those districts. Venue is also proper when the crime has a direct connection to the locale. Even the United States Constitution says: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." U.S. Const. Amd. VI. This makes common sense as well as constitutional sense. It is practical--and somehow just--to try cases in the places where the crimes happened. Every jurisdiction has a public interest in punishing wrongdoing in its own borders.

Yet there are times in which it does not make sense to try cases in the most logical places. New York seems the most fitting place to try those accused of destroying the World Trade Center. All the witnesses are there, and obviously New York has a burning local interest in punishing those who caused such havoc in its borders.

But these practical advantages spawn larger concerns. After all, the Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants "a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury." U.S. Const. Amd. VI. It is also guarantees that "no State shall deny any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Id. at Amd. IV, s. 1 The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that a State deprives "a person" of "due process of law" if it does not afford him a "fair trial." For obvious reasons, 9/11 conspirators may not get a "fair trial" by an "impartial jury" in New York. That is why it might not make sense to hold the trial there.

How can any New York jury be impartial about 9/11? Daily newspapers routinely run stories about "dangerous Muslims." Bitter memory about 9/11 runs deep. Many people knew individuals who died in the attacks, or they know their families. 9/11 is a focal point for national anger; and it burns hottest in New York.

These are the people who will sit in the "New York jury pool" when the conspirators step into court in New York. Can they be impartial? Can they render a judgment free from passion, excitement, resentment, anger or emotion? Trials are fair when they are based on evidence admitted under law in open court. They are not fair when they are based on emotional reaction, prejudice or bias.

And how can New Yorkers insulate themselves from pervasive press coverage about the trial? As soon as the Justice Department announced that it would try the suspects in New York, the New York Post published a blaring headline: "NOW DIE! 9/11 Fiends Coming Back to New York for Trial--Next Stop Hell."

That headline reminded me about the famous Supreme Court case about trial publicity and Due Process: Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966). Sheppard held that every criminal defendant has a right to a "fair trial free from massive, pervasive and prejudicial news coverage" that is "reasonably likely" to lead the jury to find against him based on inadmissible evidence and emotion. The case also concluded that the trial judge has a duty to control press access to the trial, and to monitor every juryman's out-of-court attention to news comment about the case. After all, according to the Court, the State provides trials in order to "adjudicate controversies, both civil and criminal, in the calmness and solemnity of the courtroom according to legal procedures." Id. at 350, 351, quoting Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 583 (1965). Those "legal procedures" include the requirement that the jury base its conclusions on evidence admitted in court, not on outside sources or emotion. Id. Prejudicial and pervasive press coverage undermines these goals when it poisons an entire population against a criminal defendant. And it undermines another key goal in our justice system: Fairness.

Many people discount fairness in legal questions. Law professors used to scoff at me when I suggested that certain results in cases were "unfair" or that legal forms resulted in "unfairness." After all, the law attempts to introduce scientific certainty into the maelstrom of human existence. It attempts to govern the ungovernable. In many ways, humans are ungovernable because nothing can control their emotions. Emotions are not reasonable; they are intuitive. Sometimes they flow from perceptible evidence. At times they do not. Legal formalism fails when it refuses to accept just how important emotion and intuition are to the human mind. Like emotion, it is difficult to quantify fairness. We know it when we feel it. We know when a process is unfair, even if we cannot articulate why. Fairness is important to the law, even if it draws ridicule from law professors. And sometimes even the law recognizes how important it is. In more hopeful moments, even the Supreme Court sees that no legal rule can survive unless it comports with intuitive fairness: "[O]ur system of law has endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 353 (1966), quoting In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955).

I doubt whether the 9/11 suspects will receive a "fair trial" anywhere in the United States. But I am certain they will not receive a fair trial in New York. The fact that the New York Post blared a headline telling the suspects (who are not convicted) to "Go Die" and mentioned "hell" indicates how New Yorkers feel about the case. True, not everyone reads the Post. But it voices a very popular sentiment, and it is almost impossible to avoid seeing such headlines each day. And these are the people who will receive jury duty summonses. Can we expect them to be "unbiased, calm and serene" as they consider "only evidence produced in court" in this case? I think not.

All this begs a question: Why even bother holding a trial at all for these suspects? In theory, the State and the individual should be equally matched at trial. The State attempts to divine the "truth" about the individual's "criminal act," while the individual--whom our system presumes innocent--is free to cast doubt on all the State's claims. As long as he produces a reasonable doubt about his guilt, he must go free.

But this is all theory. Few Americans presume everyday criminal suspects innocent, let alone the 9/11 conspirators. These men have been demonized in the press for over eight years. They have been held in orange jumpsuits at Guantanamo Bay. We have all seen the pictures. Can any American truly presume them innocent? Can any American reflect on them without bias or prejudice? Yet we now expect Americans--in New York, no less--to put aside all their emotions about 9/11, as well as all the negative publicity they have heard about it for the past eight years. We now expect that they will calmly and serenely reflect solely on evidence produced in court. We expect them to drop all their emotions, preconceptions and prejudices. We expect them to magically forget all the horrible things they have been told in the press since 2001. And we even expect them to respond to a judge's command to "exclude any information I deem inadmissible," including confessions induced by torture.

If our jury actually acts in the way the law expects, the 9/11 suspects will get the "fair trial" to which the Constitution entitles them. But people do not simply shut off their bias or emotion. Nor can they erase a fact from their memory simply because a judge says: "Disregard that fact, please." In short, national hysteria surrounding 9/11 for the last decade has so inflamed the American public that there is no way the 9/11 conspirators will get anything approaching a fair trial.

In this case, emotion, prejudice and a rabid press have already made the decision.

As guilty as the conspirators may be, we should step back and ask ourselves how "fair" our process truly is. And while we're at it, perhaps we should wonder whether we even want "fairness" for "monsters."

But if we sacrifice fairness in one case, what happens in the next one?

FOX NEWS, THE UNITED NATIONS, 9/11 AND OTHER FUNNY STUFF

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

I found some untroubled moments to watch the news this afternoon. Once in a while I like to know what FOX News has to say about the world, if for no other reason than to assemble new ideas for satire. I must actually hear crazy arguments before I can properly mock them. You can't do impressions without listening to your subject first.

FOX started its 7 PM broadcast with "Three Top Stories." The first involved a Muslim terror suspect who allegedly scoured beauty salons throughout New York buying up hydrogen peroxide. The newscaster said that hydrogen peroxide is a "key ingredient in explosives." FOX showed FBI men leading a young, Arab-looking man away in handcuffs.

In the second story, FOX informed me about a "terror imam from Brooklyn." He allegedly knew about the young man's plot, then lied to the police about it. FOX told me that he was being held on a $1.5 million bond for conspiracy. It also told me that authorities charged this "terror imam" with sexual abuse in 1992. I didn't see the connection between sexual abuse and international terrorism, but it sure made the "terror imam" look like a villain. After all, terrorists are bad, and so are sexual predators. But terrorist sexual predators are worse than both: A sum is always more than its component parts.

Finally, FOX interrupted its broadcast to alert me that officials in Dallas arrested a "young Muslim man" for attempting to car bomb a government building. They did not have any pictures to show. They just showed the man's long, Arab-looking name underneath a menacing-looking silhouette. FOX told me that they "would bring me more on this story as soon as they could."

Why were these the top stories? Did 9/11 just happen or something? Is it still October 2001? Does the whole Muslim fear-mongering thing still have traction among FOX viewers? Michael Moore famously mocked FOX for its relentless fixation on "evil Arabs" and vague, terrifying plots in 2004's "Fahrenheit 9/11." It was funny then, even relatively soon after 9/11. But now it's been eight years; Bush's fear-mongering has decayed beyond passe. Any assertion that bloodthirsty Muslims lurk among us now seems pathetically old-fashioned, even hackneyed. It's not 2001 anymore; there's no more Anthrax in the air. People are more worried about Medicaid now than Osama bin Laden. And for good reason: Because health care in America affects many, many more Americans than any terrorist ever will.

But for some reason FOX didn't get the memo or check the calendar. On FOX, it's still a brave battle between proud Americans and evil Muslims with long names and skull caps. Black is still black and white is still white. Hey, I guess it sells; Rupert Murdoch doesn't dish stuff that doesn't sell, truth or fashion be damned.

This is not the only funny thing I saw on the news tonight. I also saw coverage about all the world leaders at the United Nations this week. Leaving all media bias aside (ie, United States and Israel = good; Iran and Libya = bad), I just have to say how silly "collective security" really is. Woodrow Wilson started the League of Nations back in 1920. He wanted Nations to get together and respectfully solve differences without war or acrimony. It didn't work. Franklin Roosevelt tried to do the same when he conceived the United Nations in 1945. There have not been any world wars since then, but just one look at history shows that there has not been too much world peace since the United Nations started hosting world leaders.

But I am not writing about diplomacy. I am writing about the utter foolishness of U.N. speeches. No one listens to them for their substance. No one even really hopes to change minds or solve problems with them. Rather, people listen to them solely for theatrical value. After all, it's all-too predictable what happens, and it is all very staged. For example, Moammar Ghadaffi got up yesterday and railed against Israel, capitalism and the United States for over 90 minutes. As if on cue, the U.S. and Israeli delegations theatrically walked out. They did the same thing when Iran's Ahmedinijad got up and made similar points. Today, Israel's Prime Minister got up and spoke. Libya's and Iran's delegations theatrically walked out. Then the Prime Minister denounced every delegation that did not walk out on Libya's and Iran's speeches the day before.

So is this international diplomacy? Is this genuine dialogue? No--it is classic theater: Simple, emotional, sensational, uncomplicated. The orators speak in grand, emotional tones. They play to the audience. Their rhetoric delights some and outrages others. It is intentional. Delighted delegations applaud; outraged ones visibly walk out. Then later orators chastise delegates who did not walk out on speeches the orators did not like.

Funny stuff. But the sad part is that after all the fun and games, the world's differences remain starkly unchanged.

BUSINESS AS USUAL AT GROUND ZERO

A REFLECTION

Three days ago, I walked past the World Trade Center site for the first time since 9/11. In the eight years since that day, I never really had a reason to. I moved to New York in 1996. I have been here ever since, with a five-year interlude in Chicago. During the 1990s, I used to admire the Twin Towers. As a newcomer to the city, I used to orient myself by looking for them. In a strange way, I liked them. They were unique. They looked strong. When you’re a kid in New York, you like the idea that your city is bigger and stronger than any other city. It makes you feel special. The Trade Center conveyed that strength.

I knew that terrorists tried to destroy the towers in 1993. The plan was to blast one tower’s foundation so that it would fall into the other one, knocking them both down. One summer day in 1998, I distinctly remember looking up at the towers from the corner of Park Row and Broadway—near the J&R Music World. From that intersection, you had a perfect view. The south tower was on the left and the north tower was on the right. The corners faced you, and there was a narrow gap between the two structures that cut a vertical line straight into the sky. From that intersection, the towers filled the sky; they dwarfed everything around them. You were just close enough to appreciate their every detail. And you were just far enough to appreciate how massive they really were.

I remember thinking: “Wow, imagine if I were standing here that day they bombed the Trade Center and I saw one tower fall into the other? My God, that would have been frightening. I’ll bet 50,000 people could die if that happened.” At the time, this was just nightmarish daydreaming. I never really thought something would happen to the World Trade Center again. When it did, I was just as awestruck as everyone else. I remember thinking that “New York would never be the same” after that day. And I didn’t mean it in an ominous, symbolic way. I meant that the city would just look different. The Trade Center anchored the whole skyline. It made New York seem like a strong city with those two powerful columns firmly entrenched in the southern tip, like two brawny shoulders. When they collapsed, the city’s image suffered a crushing blow. In an instant, its physical profile changed for all time.

In a strange twist of fortune, I was on vacation outside the city when 9/11 happened. I even took it as a signal to “get out of New York for a while,” so I moved to Chicago. I came back to New York in 2003 and stayed another year. During 2003 and 2004, I went to law school on Worth Street in Tribeca, no more than eight blocks from the World Trade Center site. Yet I never went there. Something held me back. I didn’t really feel the need to see it. In those days, politicians and architects constantly talked about how “a new trade center will rise from the ashes of the past.” They talked about “fearlessness.” They said that terrorists would never “intimidate them.” I was ambivalent; I really did not care. All I knew was that terrorists had struck a damaging blow, and no rhetoric could erase the evidence at Ground Zero. In mid-2004, I drove back to Chicago. At that point in my life, I wasn’t sure whether I would ever come back to New York.

But here I am back in New York. Finally, after eight years, something drew me to the World Trade Center site: I had an interview in the World Financial Center. To get to the World Financial Center by subway, you take the “E” train. The last stop on the “E” train is defiantly called “World Trade Center,” even though the World Trade Center isn’t there anymore. I got off the train at the “World Trade Center” station and walked upstairs. It was about 8 A.M. on a clear July morning. Upon reaching the street, I first noticed blue plywood walls that channeled commuters in particular directions. There was a lot of construction going on. A handwritten sign pointed us toward the “World Financial Center.” Two long columns of commuters passed each other through the plywood corridor. One column headed east, the other west. I headed west.

I looked up to my left and saw sky. There was nothing there. Then a strange feeling came over me: “I remember looking up from here and seeing the towers!” From this distance, the towers used to overwhelm you and blot out the sun. They used to cast enormous shadows that cascaded down the street. But now: Nothing. Just emptiness. It is strange to see empty sky in Manhattan. It strikes you immediately. You accustom yourself to seeing buildings on all sides, some of which rise far up into the sky. Yet at the World Trade Center site, sky is all you see. It was genuinely eerie. I felt like I had just stepped onto historically important ground not long after a historically important event. The emptiness above me only confirmed that something significant happened here.

But the commuters didn’t find it eerie at all. They marched along without looking up, tuned into iPods or iPhones. They had places to be and schedules to keep. They did not want to be late for work. In short, they were doing what commuters probably were doing before the planes arrived on 9/11. On 9/11/01, commuters on this street had to scramble for their lives. But on 7/7/09, commuters on this street shuffled more than scrambled. It was just another day. Something significant happened here eight years ago. Yet it had no effect on the commuters.

I have always been overly sensitive to history. When I know that something historically important happened in a particular place, it affects me. Recently, for example, I learned that English settlers in my hometown in Connecticut murdered 700 Native Americans in a place I know very well. Since learning that, I cannot look at the place in the same way. The same feeling overcame me when I walked past the World Trade Center, but with much greater immediacy. Here, a massacre happened only eight years ago, not in 1637. Here, an event happened that fundamentally changed the way Americans think about themselves and their country. Here, thousands died on an otherwise “regular business day.” You would think that would affect people doing precisely the same thing at the same place eight years later. You would think that would make people question whether it would ever be possible to “get back to normal” after such a monumental event. Apparently, it did not. On 7/7/09 it was “business as usual” at the World Trade Center. History did not intimidate these commuters.

And why should it? After all, 9/11 panicked American society. In the days and weeks following the attacks, Americans really wondered whether they could ever “get back to normal.” They did not know whether society as they knew it was coming to an end. But then the politicians stepped in and assured them: “If you don’t get back to normal, the terrorists win. If you don’t go back to work, the terrorists win.” In essence, a new American rhetoric developed in response to the panic created after 9/11, a rhetoric of “defiant normalcy.” To defy the faceless terrorists who caused so much panic, politicians encouraged Americans to simply live as they always had. They encouraged Americans not to think about 9/11 anymore, except when it was necessary to justify some new encroachment on civil liberties. 9/11 became a justification for drastic governmental action. Yet government cultivated a patriotic vision of 9/11 that carefully avoided mentioning the panic, fear and uncertainty that reigned on the day itself. In short, Americans have been taught to “remember 9/11” in order to reaffirm “normal, working lives,” but not to “remember 9/11” for the profound shock waves it sent through American society. Memory about 9/11, in other words, is “selective.”

On 9/11, nothing really mattered anymore. People really were terrified. They just wanted to survive; they didn’t care about their jobs. But for a government trying to run an international economy, these are unacceptable sentiments. That is why politicians after 9/11 did their best to help Americans forget the terror and uncertainty they felt on that day and its immediate aftermath. On 7/7/09, they clearly had forgotten. It was back to business as usual.

Yet this ignores history. No matter how much President Bush and the Federal government attempted to channel 9/11 fear into a new patriotism of “defiant normalcy,” 9/11 was not a strong moment for America. America took a profound beating on 9/11. After the fact, politicians and pundits contemptuously labeled the attackers “cowards.” Yet this is really because America lost the fight on 9/11. No matter how painful it may be to admit, the 9/11 attackers were not “cowards.” They did not fear death. They did not shrink from bold action. No, they were about as far from “cowardly” as you can get. They ruthlessly organized a plan to crash airliners into skyscrapers, killing themselves in the process. From a linguistic perspective, this is not cowardly at all. In fact, it reflects undaunted courage. Americans simply did not like the results of their courage, so they called it “cowardly.” Courage means fearlessness in the face of danger. Cowardice means fear and panic in the face of danger. Neither word refers to the subject’s political or national affiliation. By these definitions, the 9/11 attackers definitely had courage, not cowardice. This is certainly not a politically popular thing to say in America. But “cowardly” means something in the English language; and it does not describe the actions of men who fearlessly face death to accomplish a political mission.

President Bush and the Federal government transformed shock and embarrassment over “defeat” on 9/11 into a defiant new patriotism. But this patriotism was “reactive;” it arose because America suffered so much humiliation on 9/11 that enraged Americans vowed to avenge it. Their fear turned into anger. Still, no matter how defiant Americans became in 2002 and beyond, this does not change how terrified they were on 9/11. They did not like the way they felt that day. Before 9/11, they had become accustomed to feeling secure and strong. Yet on 9/11, they saw how weak they really could be. Such moments scare anyone, and no one likes to feel weak. That is why America “reacted” to its embarrassing weakness on 9/11 with a cocky new “strength” in its values. Yet no matter how much America defiantly postured after 9/11, it does not change the fact that America suffered a defeat on the day itself.

Very few admit that 9/11 was a defeat. Even fewer reflect on the terror that reigned that day. No one likes to remember bad times. We naturally suppress negative memories. We try to push them away with assumed strength. This is precisely what America has done with 9/11. It is like a bad memory, an uncomfortable experience. It does not fit our collectively strong self-image; it fact, it showed us how vulnerable we are. So we simply ignore it. This is exactly what the commuters were doing on 7/7/09. And they were doing it extremely well. It was commerce as usual at the World Trade Center, just as it was eight years ago. But history has left its mark, no matter how much we choose to ignore it. That empty patch of Manhattan sky speaks for history. Something happened here that forced us to change the way we look at the world. Yet how few actually changed the way they live—or think—as a result?

Unchecked international commerce provoked 9/11. Now it simply grinds on—in exactly the same place it suffered it worst day ever. As I walked to the World Financial Center three days ago, I could not repress that tangible—and profound—irony: “What have we really learned?”

A LITTLE MORE TIME

This morning I got up early and put on my lawyer's costume for the first time in many months. I rode the subway down to Wall Street to interview for a consulting job. Since last summer, I have done little but write. These have been very happy days for me. But I am running out of money. With every passing month, student loan creditors and expenses gnaw mercilessly at my savings. Now I need to make a few dollars to finance myself for a while. Thankfully, I have the freedom to be selective in the work I choose. I never volunteer for "traditional employment." When I need to make money, I don't sacrifice my dignity. And I don't let anyone control me like a pawn. If my legal education got me anything, it's been the capacity to choose jobs that pay a living wage without submitting to total employer domination. It's a classic hedge.

This afternoon, my agent called and told me that the client settled the lawsuit. That means they don't need consultants anymore, at least this time. So I won't be doomed to an office for the next few weeks. That relieved me. Now I will have free mornings to write again, at least for a while. I apologize for the break today, but tomorrow I will be up and posting. Yet at some point in the coming weeks, I will be forced to suspend my everyday posting in order to make a few dollars. I will keep you updated when I know the details.

Behind every writer stands a financier. I don't have one yet; I need to be my own financier for a while longer.

I saw some interesting things in lower Manhattan. I actually walked past the 9/11 site for the first time ever, even though I have lived in New York for many years. I will go into greater detail tomorrow, but suffice it to say, the commuters didn't seem to pay attention to the fact that they were walking on historically significant ground. They didn't seem to pay attention to the gaping hole in the sky above them. No matter what Bush and the patriots said, the terrorists struck a crushing blow. The evidence was still there--in the nothingness above my head.

It was just another day at the World Trade Center site. But 8 years ago, it was a battlefield, scene of victory or a massacre, depending on your perspective. Now, it's just another place to make some money.

Until tomorrow. Thanks again for reading.

A SHORT BREAK, AND A WORD ON TERRORISM IN THE PRESS

Today I am flying to London to meet some old friends. I will be back on Monday and hopefully will have the strength to write by Tuesday. It is unusual for me to take breaks from posting. Normally I post everyday, with some exceptions. If you do not see anything popping up on the blog until next week, you know the reason. Never fear; I am still here, and I have plenty more issues to discuss when I sit back down to write.

I am looking forward to my trip. Traveling always refreshes me, especially when I travel to Europe. Maybe it's my ancestry kicking in. I just feel at home there. Although I am a little worried about the food (mutton, jelly doughnuts, liver salad, sausage rolls, fried fish filets, "chips" and "crisps"), I am most enthusiastic about the ales.

Before I leave, I must mention one thing I saw in the New York Times today. Apparently, the New York Police Department foiled a plot to bomb two Jewish synagogues in the Bronx. For almost a year, an informant infiltrated a group of four black American Muslims, one of whom was born in Afghanistan. During the investigation, the informant discovered that these four men "wanted to do something to America." But they had no resources, no contacts and no money. They did not even speak Arabic and had never left American soil. They simply "wanted" to be terrorists, even though they were just four poor angry black guys from New York. The informant secured some fake explosives for them, and even said he could help them obtain Stinger missiles so they could shoot down military aircraft in upstate New York. After the ill-informed conspirators planted the fake bombs outside the synagogues, the FBI moved in and arrested them all. No one was harmed. The bombs were inert.

Revealingly, the police did not even call these would-be martyrs "terrorists." Rather, they called them "petty criminals." I found this interesting. After all, America defines itself against terrorism. During the Bush era, America took perverse strength from this artificial duality. After all, life is much simpler when there is one black and one white, and the "America/Terrorist" distinction made all political analysis breathtakingly simple. It was utterly nonsensical, of course, but that's not the point. The point is that senior people in our government actually believed it. They believed that Americans were "white/good" and Terrorists were "black/evil." You can't get any worse than a "terrorist." Good versus evil. Luke versus Darth Vader. Who can misunderstand that?

But according to the NYPD, these guys were not even "terrorists." Ironically, I guess they were not good enough--or scary enough--to earn the title. After all, they were just a bunch of dumb "urban" guys who thought (stupidly) they had found free explosives. In a strange way, the whole "America/Terrorist" dichotomy actually dignifies terrorists in the sense that they must be "really good at being evil" to fall into the "terrorist" category. In other words, you need to be really good at what you do to be a "terrorist." Americans will only fear you if you are a "terrorist." They will take you seriously if you are a "terrorist." But if you are just a "petty criminal," Americans will laugh at you and call you stupid. They will not quake with fear. You do not deserve the imposing label "terrorist."

Yet how ironic is this? Aren't all terrorists supposed to be irretrievably bad, evil and worthless? You shouldn't be able to say that terrorists are "good" in any way, right? Perhaps not. According to public rhetoric, as here, you must be a really scary--and effective--criminal to qualify as a terrorist. You actually must have some skill, merit and ability to be an American arch-enemy. But if you are just a bumbling 25-year-old black guy from Brooklyn with an adopted Muslim name who says: "I want to do something to America," you are a mere "petty criminal." These guys "didn't make the cut." They were just inept "petty criminals," not ruthless, skilled "terrorists." They just weren't good enough to be "terrorists." If there were a terrorism job fair, these guys would not have even gotten an interview.

America's rhetoric about terrorism exposes even more thematic inconsistencies. In discussing the charges against these "dumb bombers," New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said: "This is a serious matter. They were planning on committing jihad (emphasis added)." I do not know Arabic, but I know from watching Fox News that jihad means "holy war." We hear it all the time. Muslims have fought jihad for centuries, both to expand and to defend their religion. Christians, too, have waged "holy wars" to expand and defend their religion (The Crusades; The Thirty Years' War; The Spanish Armada, etc). It is not a concept unique to Islam. Yet this is precisely what American rhetoric about terrorism would have us believe.

Here, the issue is not whether only Muslims fight for religion. The issue is the patronizing way in which America characterizes Islam. In this example, Commissioner Kelly--a police chief discussing criminal charges--says that the suspects wanted to "commit jihad." In English idiom, the verb "commit" always accompanies crimes. Men "commit" murder. They "commit" robbery. They "commit" rape. But jihad expresses the concept "holy war." It is not a common crime. It implies an abiding religious motivation. No statute forbids "armed action intended to defend the Muslim religion." In fact--in the Muslim understanding--jihad is a mandatory religious exercise against hostile forces; it is not a crime at all. Although its practical effects may give rise to crimes under American law, it really does not fit in the usual language about "everyday offenses." Yet Commissioner Kelly used the word "jihad" in the way he would describe any other crime. In this sense, he completely marginalized Islam and equated it with petty criminality. He might as well have said: "These men wanted to commit Islam."

I think this is significant. We still live with the inane "America/Terrorist" distinction even under Obama. Until America starts trying to understand why Muslims--both here and abroad--might have a problem with American policies and attitudes, we can expect more resentment, more violence and more "terror." George W. Bush shoehorned complicated issues into an unrealistic, fanciful "good versus evil" dichotomy. In so doing, he inflicted immense philosophical and conceptual damage on America's international reputation. Exploiting ignorance and passion after 9/11, he drew fictitious lines and stubbornly took sides. But religious strife and international disputes demand subtle explanation and genuine understanding, not blustering self-righteousness. Our problems have not disappeared since 9/11. If anything, they have worsened. The fact that there has not been another major attack does not prove that the Muslim world now "loves America." In my view, we still have a long way to go. After all, our public officials are still referring to traditional Muslim practices as "crimes."

Yet this is the absolutist path down which Bush led us. It will take time to correct the damage. It will take time to remember that black is not always black, nor is white always white. It may have been easy to think that there was "good" and "evil" in the world for a few years, but our delusion merely made the problems worse.

Contrary to all expectations, America does not yet have a monopoly on truth or virtue. Nor does it have a right to criticize other countries for waging religious wars, especially after the revelations last week that President Bush received weekly briefing books about the Iraq War inscribed with biblical quotations. If anything, we have a strong claim on the world monopoly for hypocrisy. And until we start selling our stake in that monopoly, we can expect more international strife.