U.S. May Charge Alleged 9/11 Leader With The Death Of Daniel Pearl

Source: ledger-enquirer.com

By Carol Rosenberg
McClatchy Newspapers

U.S. military officials intend to charge Guantanamo Bay captive Khalid Sheikh Mohammed with the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, according to a Time magazine report.

U.S. officials have identified Mohammed as the al Qaida mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and President Bush has said he's a likely candidate for a war-crimes trial.

But the Pentagon's chief war-crimes prosecutor told The Miami Herald on Friday that the Time report may be premature; prosecutors are still studying the case files of Mohammed and 13 other so-called high-value detainees who were turned over to the military by the CIA.

Captured in Pakistan in March 2003, Mohammed had been held in secret CIA detention until his Labor Day transfer to the Guantanamo detention center at the U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba.

On Thursday, Time posted an item on its Web site reporting that administration officials want to charge Mohammed with Pearl's January 2002 murder, in which Pearl's throat was slit. The killing was captured on a grisly videotape.

"One former U.S. national security official tells Time there is no doubt that KSM personally wielded the knife that killed the Wall Street Journal reporter," the report said.

Military intelligence circles refer to Mohammed, a U.S.-educated, Kuwait-born Pakistani, as KSM, a nom de guerre of sorts that Bush himself adopted in revealing Mohammed's transfer to Guantanamo on Sept. 6.

If charged and tried before the administration's new, redesigned military commissions, Mohammed would be the most senior al Qaida figure to face trial.

Unclear is whether future prosecutions would include charges of conspiracy, which had been challenged as unconstitutional in the first effort to try 10 alleged al Qaida co-conspirators already at Guantanamo.

A Pearl murder charge would allege a specific act and identify a high-profile victim, a scenario the chief Pentagon prosecutor said hadn't yet been considered.

"I at this point in time certainly can't say that," said Air Force Col. Moe Davis, whose earlier prosecutions were upended in June by a Supreme Court decision that struck down the previous military commission format.

Pentagon attorneys are presently drawing up new rules by which new commissions would be staged, though probably not until next year.

Moreover, the latest arrivals at Guantanamo, including Ramzi Binalshibh and Abu Zubaydah, other alleged al Qaida plotters, have yet to go through basic military review panels to confirm that they're "enemy combatants."

Davis said he was surprised by the Time report on plans to try Mohammed for the Pearl murder and said was definitely not the source of it.

"Ultimately if he was to be prosecuted in a military commission, it would be up to this office to draft the charges," he said in a telephone interview. "But it is way too early to be making any decision on not just him, but any of the 14.

"We haven't scratched the surface deep enough to make any decisions on that."

Time doesn't name its source but attributed to "national security officials" the detail that Mohammed admitted under interrogation to having killed Pearl, "admitting without remorse that he personally severed Pearl's head and telling interrogators he had to switch knives after the first one `got dull.'"

The magazine also reported that it compared the hands seen on the videotape executing Pearl to Mohammed's hands and confirmed it was him. It did not elaborate.

Mohammed has been identified as a 1986 graduate of North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University and is reportedly fluent in Arabic, English and Urdu.

Mohammed, who's about 40, has no lawyer and hasn't been seen publicly since his capture, although he and the other 13 detainees recently met with Red Cross delegates and have been registered as U.S.-held prisoners for the first time in up to four years of captivity at an undisclosed location.

Pearl, a Stanford University graduate who was 38 when he was killed, disappeared while on assignment in Pakistan in January 2002, pursuing an article about Islamic extremism.

I have so many questions about this...

I don't even know where to begin...

Why can't he be tried publicly if he's charged for the 9/11 attacks?

Omar Sheikh "admitted to "involvement" in the abduction of Pearl, The Wall Street Journal South-Asia bureau chief, but said he "didn't (physically) take part in the actual events (murder of Pearl)," according to the magazine."

Shouldn't we bring the two of them together? Isn't that how it works? I'm not a lawyer.

Will the ISI connections between the two be brought up?

Will the CIA/ISI connections be brought up?
__________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

KSM

Jon,

There is certainly something odd about the KSM story. I was a pretty intense researcher on 9/11 from November, 2001 up to July, 2004 and I'd never come across his name. Then, in the bat of an eye, KSM was the arch-villian in Philip Zelikow's novel, "The 9/11 Commission Report". KSM took up 272 paragraphs in that fairy tale.

I'm still not quite certain what to make of him. He makes a heckuva fine villian, I have to admit. So good in fact that if he didn't exist, someone would just have to make him up.

I think I smell a red herring crossing your trail in the post above. You sure you are interested in following it? [grin]

I don't know what you mean?

I have often speculated that KSM is already dead. Don't you think his connections to the ISI are interesting?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Supposedly...

The Red Cross met with him on Thursday.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Also...

Was 9/11 a "War-Crime", or a crime?

If it was a "War-Crime", was it Iraq, or Afghanistan that pulled it off?

Am I making sense?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Whose on first?

Jon,

You ask: "Was 9/11 a "War-Crime", or a crime?

If it was a "War-Crime", was it Iraq, or Afghanistan that pulled it off?

Am I making sense?"

Let's be extremely precise here. 9/11 was not, and I repeat, NOT a war crime. A state of war can only exist between two sovereign nations according to the Hague Accords and the Geneva Convention. Civil wars are a special category we won't quibble about here for the time being.

So, 9/11 was a crime. It was not an act of war. In fact, one of the clearest indications of who the perpetrators were was given in an interview with Osama Bin Laden with the Pakistani press days after 9/11. Bin Laden suggested that Americans look to their own secret police services for the culprits. That seems like good advice to me.

Now, since it wasn't a war crime, you are completely stepping off on the wrong foot considering that the sovereign nations of Iraq or Afghanistan should be blamed. Even George Bush has now admitted on the record that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Dick Cheney has been cornered into confessing the same thing. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Period. End of the story. This shouldn't even be a matter to be mentioned any longer since it is some of the sickest big lie propaganda that Bush and Cheney foisted on a gullible public.

Are you making sense? Hmmm, I have to say no with regard to Iraq. And I'd have to say that you seem a bit confused on what constitutes a war crime. That is what George Bush is engaged in. What happened on 9/11 really does appear to me after several thousand hours of my own intense research to be a false flag operation planned and executed by rogue elements within our own ruling elites. The alleged 19 hijackers were just patsies, as Webster Tarpley correctly observes, IMO.

So, 9/11 was a crime, 9/11 was a false flag operation. 9/11 was a propaganda ploy perpetrated by some very sick men. So sick we'd call them sociopaths. And sadly, these bastards seem to have both witting and unwitting allies in the media who facilitate their deceptions.

As Louis Armstrong would say, "what a wonderful world". [sardonic grin]

Hey Ray...

You're doing my work for me. I don't disagree with what you're saying. As I said, I'm pointing out the contradictions. For people to see. For newcomers to see. For newcomers to think about... I'm making the questions obvious for people to try and answer/understand...
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Still a red herring....

Jon,

Re: "I have often speculated that KSM is already dead. Don't you think his connections to the ISI are interesting?"

I've read much the same that KSM was killed in a gunbattle in late 2002. These dagnabed A-rabs seem to be khats with nine lives and four wives. That fella Zarqawi was sure a fine one. He seemed more myth than man until they apparently caught up with him this year.

My feeling about KSM is that he's nothing more than a convenient creation of the psyops department out at Foggy Bottom and that we really shouldn't waste much of our time on his purported comings and goings.

Let me put it this way. I totally agree with Dr. Griffin and Dr. DeMott that the 9/11 Commission Report is "whitewash as public service" or vice versa. So KSM is the biggest damn lie in the biggest damn fairy tale that our guvmint has ever tried to cram down the throats of the gullible 'murrican public.

Frankly, when I read the McClatchy article above, I was reminded of the "five minute hate" that Orwell described in "1984". Such articles are only put out into the MSM to keep the public's blood boiling about the swarthy (always better when they're swarthy), foreign enemy.

To tell you the truth, I think our enemies today are all domestic. At least the ones we need to worry about ruining our nation's future.

I understand...

Exactly what you're saying, and I don't think I disagree with you... However... I've always found it's good to follow what "they're" saying to point out contradictions in their story...
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Use...

Their words against them.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Yes, of course

Recently Tim Russert has been doing a better job of catching Cheney and Rumsfeld at their lies. Ray McGovern walloped Donny Rumsfeld in an Atlanta event a couple of months ago, using Rummy's own words to hoist him by his petard. This is a good technique.

Now try to point out the quote in the McClatchy article that you can attribute to someone important and call it a lie. Sorry. It simply can't be done. There's an ineffable vagueness about that article that makes it such that it is an appeal to emotion and nearly content-free. There is no there there. Basically, what I was objecting to with the whole KSM fairy tale is that it is so ephemeral and gossamer that it's impossible to accomplish anything by paying attention to the blarney. And that's all I'm going to say on the matter. G'day!

Why...

Do you think I asked, "Why can't he be tried publicly if he's charged for the 9/11 attacks?"
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I don't know...

I guess I have a strange way of telling people the truth. I firmly believe that people have to read in order to understand. I put what I think are the "right questions" out there people should be asking, and trying to figure out the answer to. It helps them to read, and understand the contradictions of the story. Rather than just blurt out what I think happened.

Does that make sense?
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

We should never have secret trials for anything...

secret trials were tools of Hitler & Stalin, they have no place in the U.S.A.

This is excellent reporting,

This is excellent reporting, Jon. People who have not read the 9/11 Commission Report should have a look at chapter 5, where the commission announces in a boxed-off section that most of the information in chapters 5 and 7, the chapters that essentially connect OBL with 9/11, comes from the alleged confessions of KSM. Most important, the commission says it never interviewed the al Qaeda detainees in secret prisons, such as KSM, and it did not have any contact with the alleged interrogators.

In other words, everything we know about KSM and 9/11, and much of what we know about OBL and 9/11, comes from intelligence reports that have never been corroborated. Even the fraudulent commission admits this is a problem. I would be very surprised if KSM ever stands trial in a court of law, and not a military tribunal, if in fact he is in US custody.

Just thought people new to this information should understand one of the most glaring problems with the alleged confessions that connect OBL with 9/11.