ONE
on
ONE
with The Final Call

Final Call News (FCN): What was your first reaction when you saw the attacks as they happened?

Tyrone Powers (TP): Obviously, it was a horrendous thing, but I expected it because I have been studying terrorism for so long at work and taught [counter-terrorism], so I knew that at some point it would come to our shores.

FCN: What did you think of the government�s analysis of the attack prior to anthrax, that it was a [Osama] bin Laden-connected foreign attack?

TP: Immediately, I discerned that it had to have been more than bin Laden and al-Qaeda. If, in fact, it was bin Laden � this operation was not put together in the caves of Afghanistan. It had to be put together with the assistance of some other advanced nation. At the time, it immediately came to mind that Russia had to be involved. The reason I thought of Russia is because we actually created the groups in Afghanistan to bring down the Soviet Union. [The Russians] might have provided some logistical help, some photos for navigational purposes of the aircraft; or some other advanced nation that actually didn�t sponsor the terrorist act, but participated by providing logistical support.

As all terrorist operations work, you always have a financer�a person who pays for it and maybe even wants it done. Then you have the person who is most significant, the person who designs it. Someone had to know that those [Trade Center] buildings were designed not to � fall on the other. They were designed to come straight down. If you ever wanted to bring down both towers, you would have to hit both towers. If, in fact, it was al-Qaeda or a similar group, they had assistance from a first world nation or at least a second world nation.

FCN: They immediately labeled Osama bin Laden. Do you think that was credible, or does this go back to the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Africa?

TP: The public needs to understand that key for the people in the White House and State Department was to do something, and bin Laden was the most readily available enemy at that time. We must have a face of evil; it�s a catharsis for the American people. Whether it was Russia and the Evil Empire that Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union� or the Ayatollah of Iran� Muammar Gadhafi, Saddam Hussein. It doesn�t matter if the face is guilty or not. And if it wasn�t bin Laden, then [the government feels] he deserves to be hit anyway. What�s so suspicious about this is the statement that came from bin Laden after the bombings started on Afghanistan. One of his spokespersons said they didn�t do this, but if America keeps bombing them then don�t go in skyscrapers, don�t go in airplanes. So, if they had been responsible for these attacks and the anthrax attacks, he would have added the anthrax [threat].

FCN: The government is indicating that the anthrax attack is home grown terrorism. What do you think?

TP: The so-called Middle East terrorist organizations don�t have a reputation of sending letters after their acts. Historically, whenever these attacks have occurred, a call was made from an anonymous caller from a phone booth saying so-and-so is responsible for this. Terrorists are put into two categories--either left wing or right wing. Left wing terrorist is the category the U.S. has placed what they call Middle East and Latin American terrorist groups. Right wing terrorist groups would be the religious right, or those groups that a Timothy McVeigh would belong to. And their targets are different. The Timothy McVeighs and the right wing domestic terrorist groups attack any government symbols, like the Post Office, the Federal Building in Oklahoma, the Senate, the House [of Representatives]. The World Trade Center was the symbol of power. [Left wing groups] specifically think out their targets. If it was an international terrorist group, then they see the World Trade Center as a symbol of international power, us building a tower to the heavens to prove that we are greater than God Himself. The Pentagon, the tower of military might and power. But the Post Office would be totally insignificant.

FCN: There�s a new book, �Body of Secrets,� about how U.S. officials planned to trick the American public and international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba�s then new leader, Fidel Castro. The book says that government officials even considered causing U.S. military casualties to fuel support to get rid of Castro. Is there any suggestion or possibility that the government could have orchestrated these September 11 events?

TP: I certainly wouldn�t put it past the government to want a war, but we�ve had no problem whatsoever going to war without creating this kind of event. If they really wanted to go to war on an event, when the U.S.S. Cole was bombed, they could have named somebody and went after them then. This war in Afghanistan is such a minor thing in the whole scheme of things. If they wanted to create a war, I can�t believe that this is that war and, secondly, we can manufacture a war without bringing down the World Trade Center or the Pentagon.

FCN: But those things would not have led to the kinds of draconian measures to cut back civil liberties that September 11 has.

TP: If that is the hypothesis, certainly the government can essentially do most of those things in those current bills anyway, under the guise of national security. They just can�t use it as evidence to prosecute you. Secondly, the Wan Ho Lee and FBI bungling of the Hansen spy case, those incidents already had begun leading to a reduction of civil liberties, but it was under the guise of national security. � It would be overkill to do it in this manner. They could have done something much less and got the same result.

FCN: You�ve talked about how counter-terrorism is done properly and how what�s going on now doesn�t fit that. Can you explain what you mean?

TP: If you�re going to look at terrorism, you�ve got to strip it of all its patriotism and emotionalism and examine it as the root of what it is and how it exists. Step one is you have to define terrorism. Four different agencies in the country have four different definitions. You can�t counter what you cannot define. You have to have an international definition of terrorism. If you�re asking other countries to help you fight terrorists, then everyone has to be on the same page as to what they look like. Fifteen years ago the ANC was labeled a terrorist organization by the United States. We would have been at war with them.

FCN: Why Afghanistan, and can this really be about oil?

TP: There�s more to bombing Afghanistan than rooting out the Taliban. The U.S. wants to control that land, that�s why they have yet to put weapons into the hands of the Northern Alliance. They don�t want the Northern Alliance to control Afghanistan � they want to bring back [King Mohammad Zahir Shah] who has been living in a westernized country for years so he can run Afghanistan and we�d have control of the oil there.

FCN: So this is not a war against Islam, as Bush has stressed?

TP: There is no doubt in my mind that they see Islam [as a threat]. When the Berlin Wall came down the New York Times printed that the Soviet Union is dead and the next enemy is Islam, and Nixon said the same thing. So, despite all the rhetoric and all the Arab nations they pay off, it�s clear that there�s at least a sub-battle against Islam.

We must be clear that the United States is not a nation, it is an empire. The first battle, then, is against those who oppose the empire. Like it was with the Roman Empire and the British Empire, it�s not just a matter of controlling the nation, they want to control the world. For those who oppose the empire, that may be the first battle, but closely behind that, they believe that of those who oppose the empire are mostly of the Islamic faith. So they must attack Islam in order to oppose those who oppose the Empire that this nation hopes to become.

FCN: Thank you.