Reply #7: Did Rumsfeld relly have the authority?

[pberq]

Below I have lifted a section of the first chapter of David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor, hoping that fair use copyright rules apply.

As he says at the end, this discussion is only about flight 11! By the time we get to Flight 175, the lack of SOP is even more glaring. Whether or not Rumsfeld had the shoot-down authority, there has been no explanation why the hijacked jets were not intercepted according to SOP.

"So, even if the FAA had waited until the plane went off course at 8:20, the plane should have been intercepted by 8:30, or 8:35 at the latest, again in plenty of time to prevent it from going into New York City.
As to what would occur upon interception, Ahmed explains by quoting the FAA manual:

Rocking wings from a position slightly above and ahead of, and normally to the left of, the intercepted aircraft.... This action conveys the message: "You have been intercepted." The commercial jet is then supposed to respond by rocking its wings to indicate compliance, upon which the interceptor performs a "slow level turn, normally to the left, on to the desired heading ." The commercial plane then responds by following the escort. ⁷

If Flight 11 had been thus intercepted but did not respond, it would, according to standard procedures, have been shot down. Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a NORAD spokesman, after telling the Boston Globe that NORAD's "fighters routinely intercept aircraft," continued:

When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile. ⁸

The question raised by critics, of course, is why this did not happen in the case of Flight 11. Why was the plane not even intercepted?

Some confusion about this matter, they point out, was created by Vice President Cheney during an interview on "Meet the Press" on September 16, in which he suggested that the "question of whether or not we would intercept commercial aircraft," as well as the question of whether it would be shot down, was "a presidential-level decision." This statement, point out the critics, confuses two matters: intercepting and shooting down, and interception is a routine matter, which occurs well over a hundred times a year. ⁹ The confusion of these two matters was also aided by General Richard Myers, then Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ¹⁰ in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 13, in which he stated: "After the second tower was hit, I spoke to the commander of NORAD, General Eberhart. And at that point, I think the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft."" He, like Cheney, implied that fighters would be sent up to intercept flights only if ordered to by commanders at the highest level. But interception occurs routinely, as a matter of standard operating procedure, even if shooting down a plane would be, as Cheney implied, "a presidential-level decision."

Moreover, although some researchers have accepted the view that a hijacked plane could be shot down only with presidential authorization, ¹² Thierry Meyssan points out that the military regulations seem to say otherwise. According to these regulations,

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 requests needing an immediate response... forward requests for DoD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. ¹³

Accordingly, concludes Meyssan, the regulations give the responsibility for shooting down hijacked airplanes "to the Secretary of Defense." Furthermore, as the phrase beginning "with the exception" shows, if the Secretary of Defense cannot be contacted in time, other people in the line of command would have the authority. According to a Department of Defense document cited by Meyssan:

It is possible to formulate to any element in the chain of command "Requests needing Immediate Response." These arise from imminently serious conditions where only an immediate action taken by an official of the Department of Defense or a military commander can prevent loss of lives, or mitigate human suffering and great property damage. ¹⁴

According to this reading, many people in the line of command would have had the authority to prevent the "loss of lives" and "great property damage" that occurred when AA Flight 11 slammed into the North Tower of the WTC.

One might argue, to be sure, that at that time no one would have known that the plane was going to do that. But, critics of the official account would reply, that argument—besides not explaining why Flight 11 was not at least intercepted—would not apply to the second plane to crash into the WTC."