Potential terror jurors cite 9/11 doubts

Potential terror jurors cite 9/11 doubts

Thu, May. 03, 2007

By CURT ANDERSON
Associated Press Writer

MIAMI -- Many potential jurors in the Jose Padilla terrorism-support case say they aren't sure who directed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because they don't trust reporters or the federal government.

"There are too many ifs, too many things going on," one male juror said. "I don't know the whole story."

Others say they just don't pay close enough attention to world events to be certain.

"I'm oblivious to that stuff," one prospective female juror said during questioning this week. "I don't watch the news much. I try to avoid it."

The doubts were noted by a significant portion of the more than 160 people who have been questioned individually since jury selection in the case began April 16.

Padilla and two co-defendants are charged with being part of a North American support cell for Islamic extremists. A jury is expected to be seated next week, with testimony to begin May 14.

Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant, is accused of applying for an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan. He was previously accused of an al-Qaida plot to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a U.S. city, but that allegation is not part of the Miami case.

Before they came to court, each of the jurors filled out a 115-question form asking about a wide range of legal, political and religious topics, particularly their views of Arabs, Muslims and Islamic radicals. On question No. 60, which asks for an opinion about responsibility for the Sept. 11 terror attacks, many people said they don't know.

"I've been surprised at the number of our jurors who don't have an opinion about 9/11," U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, who is presiding over the case and asks most of the juror questions, said Wednesday.

The questionnaires were used to weed out dozens of people with obvious biases or personal hardships before the face-to-face interviews began, meaning many potential jurors with strong views about Sept. 11 never made it to court because their ability to be impartial was in question.

A cottage industry of conspiracy theorists has sprung up among academics and others who claim such things as that the U.S. was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, or that explosives planted inside the World Trade Center towers brought the buildings down rather than the jetliners that crashed into them.

In the Padilla case, what's notable is not so much conspiracy theories as the lack of any views at all.

To be sure, most jurors without a Sept. 11 opinion are aware that the attacks have been blamed on terrorists of some sort. But many seem unwilling to blame al-Qaida and its leader, Osama bin Laden - the conclusion reached by the national Sept. 11 Commission and the Bush administration and widely reported by news media.

One female juror agreed that was a "general public consensus" but still held out skepticism.

"I don't have an opinion. I don't tend to trust the news media," she said.

Many jurors seem to be unwilling to state the al-Qaida connection as fact because they don't have firsthand knowledge. An older male juror said he answered "al-Qaida and bin Laden" on his questionnaire because "that was what the news said."

"I really can't say who did it," said the man, who was not being identified because Cooke has prohibited publication of jurors' names.

Samuel Terilli, a journalism professor at the University of Miami and former general counsel at The Miami Herald, said that hesitancy often comes naturally when people are asked for their opinions in an official setting, such as federal court.

"You have a tendency among some people when they are called to jury duty to heighten their skepticism about what they have read or watched, and also they have a desire to be more neutral," Terilli said. "People are on guard too much."

Some people say they don't necessarily believe the U.S. government's statements about Sept. 11, with many of those people citing the faulty intelligence and misinformation about weapons of mass destruction that led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the toppling of President Saddam Hussein.

"It could have been Saddam Hussein. It could have been bin Laden. I really don't know who," one woman said.

DIGG ME PLEASE!!

It's All About Al-Qaeda

It's All About Al-Qaeda Again

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR200705...

"I don't need to remind you who al-Qaeda is," Bush reminded. "Al-Qaeda is the group that plot and planned and trained killers to come and kill people on our soil. The same bunch that is causing havoc in Iraq were the ones who came and murdered our citizens."

Yawn.

This is a GREAT article!

It clearly indicates that most people have doubts about the official story and that many more do not believe it at all!

it's total acknowledgement

of how far we have come in this movement.

News editor at The Watchman Report, www.watchmanreport.com, delivering 9/11 truth to the Christian community

No, it isn't "great".

This article gently suggests that SOME people, when put in an "official" setting express doubts, ignorance, or confusion about 9/11. Then it proceeds to hammer home the phrase "conspiracy theory" about 5 times. I mean this in the most polite way possible... work on your reading comprehension. The better your mastery of written and spoken language, the more effective you will be in fighting the NWO. Do some research on propaganda and COINTEL too. Wiki has some great material on these topics. Once you know the tricks, filter everything you read, watch, or hear through your new BS detector.

9/11 Truth is inevitably going to get some mainstream attention. We want the right kind of attention. This is not it. This is just more propaganda. Let's get excited when real information, analysis, debate, and logic begin to break into the mainstream. "Sound-Bites" that repeat "conspiracy theory" a million times ain't gonna cut it.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

What's great is what happened

I agree that the spin is bad, but the article suggests that citizens may not be blindly buying the propaganda any more. And there is some encouraging information in the article that cannot be hidden by dishonest analysis.

This article isn't 'great'

because of the article, with its obvious spin, it is good to see that on a grassroots, ground floor type level, people are aware that you can't trust the government's account of 9/11. This is an article that basically gives anecdotal support to the poll that showed that under 16% of the public believes they've gotten the full truth about 9/11 from our government.

In regards to...

The phrase, "Conspiracy Theory", read this.


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

We're not worthy, oh master of reading comprehension!

Really, however politely intended, your remarks come across as condescending crap.

Of course spin and OCT bias are going to be apparent in an AP story! But all the same, evidence of a changing reality where public attitudes are concerned manages to work its way through the OCT filter:

'"I don't have an opinion. I don't tend to trust the news media," she said.

'Many jurors seem to be unwilling to state the al-Qaida connection as fact because they don't have firsthand knowledge. An older male juror said he answered "al-Qaida and bin Laden" on his questionnaire because "that was what the news said."'

'"I really can't say who did it," said the man, who was not being identified because Cooke has prohibited publication of jurors' names.'

I couldn't imagine such comments appearing in a mainstream media piece for the better part of the past five-and-a-half years. Defenders of the official story must be cringing at such apparent weakening of its grip over public consciousness.

sound familiar?

Blair denies MI5 failures and rejects call for 7/7 inquiry

Tony Blair today ruled out demands for a new inquiry into the July 7 bombings, denying claims that MI5 overlooked crucial evidence which could have prevented the attacks

In the Commons, the Prime Minister said a fresh inquiry would be a "mistake" and would undermine support for the security services in the fight against terrorism.

"We won't get any more truth, because the truth is there in the intelligence and Security Committee, but what we will do is undermine support for our security services and I am simply not prepared to do it."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/020507_b_failures.htm

Blair rejects 7/7 inquiry

Blair rejects 7/7 inquiry calls

BBC
Thursday May 03, 2007

Tony Blair has again rejected calls for a fresh inquiry into the 7/7 attacks, saying it would undermine the security services.

The prime minister repeatedly dismissed Tory leader David Cameron's demands for a "proper independent inquiry".

He also told MPs at Commons question time that it would divert resources from the fight against terrorism.

Survivors of the 2005 attack renewed their calls for an inquiry on Monday after the fertiliser bomb plot trial.

It emerged at the end of the year-long court case that MI5 had watched and followed two of the 7 July bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, a year before the attacks as part of their surveillance of the fertiliser bomb plotters.
In the Commons, Mr Cameron dismissed the ISC inquiry, saying a full independent inquiry was needed because the committee had limited powers of investigation.

He said people wanted such an inquiry because of "the scale" of what happened in London on July 7 when 52 people were killed.

"The reason people want a full inquiry is to get to the truth," said Mr Cameron.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/030507Blair.htm

Webcameron

David Cameron's weblog (see http://www.webcameron.org ) has recently been under siege by the 9/11 Truth Movement for weeks on end. So perhaps that has finally paid off a bit. On the other hand (and perhaps more realistically), the Tories will of course do anything to gain power, including demanding a new 7/7-inquiry as they know that a large part of the British population wants that. I'm sure that if the Tories would have been running the country during 7/7, you'd now have the Labour party demanding a new investigation, and vice versa.
So.... whatever.

yes, i noticed that myself

yes, i noticed that myself about Cameron. maybe we did make a dent over there? of course your right about how its a dog and pony show but still i like to think that we might have made some small difference here.

-I agree; we may have made a

-I agree; we may have made a small difference there, indeed. The good thing about 9/11 Truth is that once you have (partly) convinced someone, there's no going back for that person (even if he or she happens to be a politician). In that regard, we have a huge mass-psychological advantage over the ever-silent "elite". So in the end we should win, logically speaking. Perhaps we're already winning... the signs are still getting stronger every week. Ever since we got global critical mass in September 2006, things have been expanding further. This process may well have become an automatic societal thing already.

By the way, Cameron has also done some good stuff recently in support of the cause of the Chagos Islanders (which were secretly deported by the US and UK in the late 60s), after someone posted an excellent question on his website to this effect. But here, again, their illegal deportation (from today's British Indian Ocean Territory which came to include the US military base on Diego Garcia) took place during consecutive Labour governments... so also here it's the same Tory/Labour story again.

Sorry, I voted the first post down by mistake

In my fervent wish to express my disgust with Blair and his suppression of an investigation, I clicked on the down arrow key, meaning to show my opposition to him, not to the post itself. I know that's not how it's supposed to work

Blair--drives me NUTTY!

Labour should have been shot of him AGES AGO!

GRRRRRRRRRR!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

"The questionnaires were

"The questionnaires were used to weed out dozens of people with obvious biases or personal hardships before the face-to-face interviews began, meaning many potential jurors with strong views about Sept. 11 never made it to court because their ability to be impartial was in question."

which means they weeded out all the truthers. obvious bias huh? is that what they call being realistic now?

Weeded out true believers, also

I imagine that many of the people weeded out said that they could not judge the facts fairly, based on their acceptance of the official story.

But you are right - the process also probably weeded out those who said they do not believe a word the government says about 9/11.

The other side

This article talks about some of the true believers that had to be dismissed.

http://www.neverinournames.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1318

This article talks about how discussion of 9/11 will be limited.

http://www.examiner.com/a-676309~Judge_limits_9_11_references_in_Jose_Pa...

The prosecutors are apparently including killing of Serb forces in Bosnia in the charges. How bizarre.

I think that might be the

I think that might be the case. The matter of who may be responsible for 9/11 should have no bearing in the case whatsoever, as he has not been accused of it. The real issue that frightens the prosecution is that people who don't profess belief in al Qaeda's role in 9/11 are also less likely to believe in the phony "War on Terra" as well.

No, Professor Terilli

they have a desire to be more neutral," Terilli said. "People are on guard too much."

People sitting in judgment of a man's liberty take the process very seriously and tell the truth. They were asked, and they gave their opinion. It is amazing to me that a journalism professor and lawyer would criticize people's skepticism about what they read and watch.

A cynic might some people want to avoid long jury duty, but that would not account for this many people saying this. And Terilli is right that people will be more careful to be neutral in this setting, but I attribute that to thoughfullness, not being on guard.

Looks like the government will actually have to prove their case this time.

This statement...

"It could have been Saddam Hussein. It could have been bin Laden. I really don't know who."

Makes me think the media has done a REALLY crappy job letting the American people know that Iraq had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks.

It also makes me think that Cheney and Bush's recent Iraq War/9/11 connections have been welcome with open arms to those that refuse to believe their President/Government would lie to them about such horrible things.


It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

My local paper

Makes fun of people for believing the government about WMDs, and for not believing the government about 9/11:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/280363_edit08c.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/saturdayspin/280970_horsey12.html

another show trial, another brown person

Let's see, so far the trials that have gotten any publicity with people allegedly connected with al Qaeda in this country are Moussaoui, a black man, and Padilla, a Puerto Rican. Those other alleged plotters that were "thwarted" in Miami a while back were black.

As a Puerto Rican myself, I want to make sure people understand how this makes latin@s and black people feel. Especially those of us who know what really happened on 9/11. I wonder what the reaction would be if Alberto Gonzales quietly arranged for Padilla to be released the same way Michael Chertoff arranged for the release of the dancing Israelis? I know there's really no comparing because first of all Gonzales is Mexican, not Puerto RIcan--Chertoff and the dancing Israelis are all Israeli. The case against Padilla is quite flimsy, the dancing Israelis were caught red handed in their white van, and moreover were ILLEGALLY working in the US (supposedly as movers but actually as spies).

This goes well beyond a double standard. It moreover puts the lie to the hysteria about an increase in anti-semitism. I guess no one complains about the increase in anti-latino and black sentiment because let's face it--it's always been this high.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

damn straight

TY YT ... sometimes a man HAS to stand up and represent

Especially after people (very politely) ask him to tone down his criticism of Israel. If only it were that easy to ask the MSM to tone down their daily assaults on blacks and hispanics, not to mention arabs and muslims.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

RT -

Wasn't it Tom Ridge and/or Robert S. Mueller that sent the dancing Israelis home?

Chertoff didn't take over the DHS until February of 2005.

Or did I miss something?

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

you missed something :)

Chertoff was the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the criminal division of DOJ between 2001-2003. He is credited with co-authoring the Patriot Act as well as with coordinating the round up and detention of Arab Muslims after 9/11. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Chertoff

Not usually mentioned is the fact around the same time a smaller number of Israelis (including the dancing Israelis) were also being rounded up which would naturally have also fallen under his jurisdiction at DOJ.

Chertoff also had an interesting history pre-9/11 ties to alleged financers of "Islamic terrorism"... http://star.txstate.edu/main/article.php?aid=1236 and as head of DHS was responsible for FEMA and its Katrina disaster.

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force