Message to lawyers listserv about need for evidence
I am on a listserv of the American Society of International Law that discusses issues such as torture and the "war on terror."
http://www.asil.org/membership/discussionforums.html
Two weeks I got a message about Phillip Zelikow that was critical of his position on torture. Someone from Germany wrote that 9/11 had been a "surreal TV spectacle" for her, which is why I begin with that phrase in the message below.
What shocks me is that I have gotten no response whatsoever, not even an attack for being a "conspiracy theorist."
I know I'm still on the list and people get my messages, as this message was sent to me through the listserv and I have since posted another message on a mundane topic and gotten a response. Anthony D'Amato of Northwestern Law School, whose article I cite, is on the listserv but had no response.
I left the bad formatting and mistakes the same.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: PEGC Update/Zelikow
9/11 was a surreal TV spectacle for most people throughout the United
States and the world.
Thanks in part to Phillip Zelikow, the events of that day have not been
adequately explained,
yet are used by him to justify war, torture, and lawlessness. I think
that a group of
international lawyers should take a more critical view of the factual
premises of their debate
on human rights and the "war on terror."
Professor D'Amato points out the problems with Khalid Shaik Mohammed's
confession.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/03/true-confessions-tale-of-khalid-shaikh.php
Yet no one seems to question why such a Stalinist show trial might be
necessary --- one
reasonable conclusion is that it is to cover up what really happened.
Two men are in prison,
one in Germany and one in the United States, based on the "testimony" of
KSM. Lawyers should
not except such flawed evidence as a premise for discussion human rights
and the "war on terror."
Given the massive flaws in the United States government's explanation
for 9/11, including the
failure to explain the rapid pulverization of the twin towers, there is
no reason to accept the
official explanation of 9/11 as a premise for legal and policy
discussions.
There are professors of law and other fields, including physics and
mathematics, that question
the official explanation of 9/11. This is not the fantasy of
"conspiracy theorists," but the
considered opinion of sober, learned people based on a review of the
facts.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html
The law professors begin with "Horst Ehmke," about half way down the
page. Also included are Richard Falk
and Burns Weston.
I hope that lawyers on this list will consider this problem.
Dwight Van Winkle
Attorney at Law
Seattle
-------------------------------------------------------------
I'll add earlier messages about the term "war on terror." I got one response to these, that I was being "ridiculous" because everyone uses the term.
I'll be responding with Zbigniew Brzezinki's article here:
Terrorized by 'War on Terror': How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5186
-------------------------------------------
Re: HUMAN RIGHTS MONTH 2007
I would just add that the Special Rapporteur agrees that the "war on
terror" is rhetoric:
"The Special Rapporteur does not consider the international fight
against terrorism as a "war", at least not in other than rhetorical
terms."
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/15B4F3535CE9EB5FC12572E600569287?opendocument
I say it is terribly damaging propaganda, but propaganda or rhetoric, it
should not be reinforced by lawyers. "Fight against terrorism" is
better, as it can entail law enforcement and other non-military means.
On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:16:37 -0700, [my email] said:
> In reference to the May 31 event:
>
> Please stop using the term "war on terror," or at least put it in
> quotes.
>
> It is a propaganda term and should not given legitimacy by lawyers,
> especially human rights lawyers.
>
> I go further, though it is not necessary for my first point:
>
> The "war on terror" is premised on a patently fraudulent story of the
> events of 9/11.
>
> I assume this is not the forum for "conspiracy theories" other than the
> official one, so I will not explain.
> A group of lawyers should be able to figure it out.
>
> Dwight Van Winkle
> Attorney, Seattle
>
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 17:22:37 -0400, "Human Rights Academy"
> said:
> > HUMAN RIGHTS MONTH 2007
> > MAY 21 - JUNE 15
> > American University Washington College of Law
> > Academy on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
> > Washington, D.C.
> >
> > THURSDAY, MAY 31
> > Human Rights and the War on Terror: Current Debates at the Local and
> > International Levels
> > 12:45 p.m. - 2:15 p.m., WCL, Room 603
> > Invited Panelists:
> > Elisa Massimino, Director, Human Rights First, DC Office
> > Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
> > Martin Scheinin, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Terrorism
> >
> --
- Ningen's blog
- Login to post comments
.
Dwight a.k.a. Ningen, good message.
I hope you will continue to contribute to this list serve, so that others on the list will continue to see your thinking process. Over time, I would hope, that alone will open some eyes to what else you have to say.
If it were me, I would keep the 9-11 references somewhat rare, until and unless someone ventures to comment or ask or argue on those topics. If it comes to arguments, I would suggest that you stay most respectful. It works better. Even in the face of blatant attacks, that works best, in my observation.
I am amazed at how necessary this 9-11 ignorance seems to be, all around. I think it has to do with this: uncovering the truth, or even just parts of it, also uncovers the fact that the whole system failed us totally and miserably. People simply can't allow that realization, so they deny. I suspect this is a classic repression, and on a very large scale.
These are probably not new thoughts for you or others here.
My conclusion: we must work for positive changes so that there is an alternative. Have you heard the palm frond image? Ten men can't pull a palm frond off the tree. But if a new palm frond starts growing out from inside it, the old one will finally just fall off by itself.
Thanks, Student
That's good advice, which I am trying to follow.
The problem, which is the same problem I had at Daily Kos, is that so much of the discussion is premised on acceptance of the 9/11 lies, so that even supposedly progressive debate furthers the lies.
Laurie Manwell's article on the psychology of denial, at Journal of 9/11 Studies, describes what you are talking about: people with the most stake in the system are the most resistant to accept something that places the system's legitimacy into fundamental question.
It's not ignorance, it is silence. As MLK said, there comes a point when silence is betrayal. That point is long past.
I can't accept this from lawyers, particularly a group of lawyers that are concerned about human rights and international law.
It was suggested elsewhere on 911 Blogger that I was talking about TV Fakery when I talked about a "surreal TV spectacle." I responded as follows:
------------------------
The "surreal TV spectacle" was a comment of a German law scholar who said that was how 9/11 seemed to her when she saw it on television in Germany.
She did not mean "TV Fakery," and I did not make that claim in my message to the legal listserv.
I was merely pointing out that the event was as mediated for Americans as it was for Germans. The event was even mediated for people in New York, as I have discussed at my blog.
Yes, 9/11 was a TV spectacle, even if you don't believe that images were faked.
Do you know what "spectacle" means?
http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/1.htm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
.
This surely was meant as a spectacle. Shock and awe, as they said (later, about the next spectacle).
Also, I see what you mean, about assumptions. What you relate here seems to reflect the whole left gatekeeper phenomenon.
So much of the debate today, even -- or especially -- on the left, is predicated on this one grand falsehood. I hardly read now from sources that formerly seemed to me so highly informed.
I wish you luck. I hope you do in fact find a way to open the 9-11 lid, in that forum for lawyers. Maybe (and opposite to my previous suggestion) you would simply keep mentioning it there, until someone responds somehow? You need a conversation, at at present there is none happening. They are avoiding it, for whatever reason.
As for TV fakery, I can't get interested in that issue. Same with exotic weapons. The towers came down. That is certain. Let's get a real investigation as to how that happened.
And I assume that you agree, since I have seen you say the same.