Message about 9/11 to listserv on international law

Commenting on my earlier blog with a message to a listserve of the American Society of Internal Law, Student suggested:

"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."

This is good advice. There are two problems: (1) The majority of the topics on the list take 9/11 as an underlying, unquestioned premise; (2) It's been almost 6 years since 9/11, and abundant evidence has been publicized that should make the need for a real investigation, and the need to quit taking the official story for granted, abundantly obvious.

I'm not interested in pandering, nor in wasting my time. My messages have been provocative, and have been ignored so far. I want some discussion of these issues by lawyers and law professors, but I also want to express my shame in the response to 9/11 of the American legal profession.


ASIL Forum" [Add]
Re: Any care to comment on the editorials out of WAPo of today? Particularly the first, by the ever bothersome duo...

The authors' concern for losing terrorism as a justification for war begs the question of whether terrorism, and particularly the events of 9/11, are a valid justification for the current war.

According to the opinion, Al-Marri was arrested a few months after 9/11, supposedly as a material witness in the government's so-called investigation of 9/11.

A citizen of Qatar, he had entered the U.S. with his wife and children to get a master's degree at a college in Peoria, Illinois. He was charged with financial crimes, credit card fraud, false statement on bank application, etc. He pleaded not guilty and was set for trial in July 2003. Prior to the trial, he moved to suppress evidence as obtained by torture. Before the hearing could be held, the Government came in with a presidential order saying he was enemy combatant, Al Qaeda, preparing for act of terrorism, etc. Draw your own conclusions from the timing.

The Washington Post didn't think that the motion to suppress for torture was a significant fact.

He's been in custody for 5 and 1/2 years, and during at least 18 months of that time could not see his wife and children.

His right to a speedy trial has of course been vitiated.

When he petitioned for habeas, a Defense Intelligence Agency declaration claiming Al-Marri met with KSM and was ordered to be a sleeper agent, was used to support his detention. As Professor D'Amato has pointed out, the alleged KSM confession is a travesty.

Any proceedings that use KSM's "testimony," including the Moussaoui trial, are obviously fundamentally flawed.

Why can't the government just charge Al-Marri with conspiracy to commit terrorism or the like? Why didn't they do that years ago? Are they afraid they cannot support such charges in an open trial, just as they were unable to sustain the "dirty bomb" charges against Jose Padilla, which were
used to terrify the American public?

The government needs to give Al-Marri an open, fair trial as soon as possible. Not only his liberty, but our liberty is at stake.

I trust that lawyers and law professors on this list don't consider the Moussaoui trial to have been a real adjudication of the facts of 9/11. Edward Lazurus disposes of that notion:

And of course, the government never gave a rational explanation for the rapid pulverization of the Twin Towers which resulted in the majority of deaths on 9/11, and is still killing firemen and policemen.

I remain very troubled that a listserv full of law professors does not have anything to say about this, despite my prior messages. Yes, my messages are provocative, and thus should be welcomed on a discussion list. Let's discuss this issue.

Butler Schaffer, Professor at Southwestern School of Law, describes a failure of intellectuals to engage in empirical, rational anaysis of 9/11, and calls it "institutionally-certified ignorance." He calls for "existential courage," asking "Why should free and energized minds be fearful of asking any questions, particularly those we have been told it is improper to ask?"

Mustering up some existential courage, I am asking the bar and the legal academy:

How can you endorse the unproven premises of this "war on terror," with all its deadly consequences and violations of human rights?

I thought the only way rulers could behave this way was to "first, kill all the lawyers." Apparently the lawyers in Shakespeare's time had more courage.

Dwight Van Winkle

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 19:04:04 +0200, [redacted] said:

> Impunity for al-Qaeda
> The Implications of a Bad Ruling on 'Unlawful Enemy Combatants'
> By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
> Monday, July 2, 2007; Page A19

I'm afraid the legal profession has betrayed us as badly as

the msm has. Most lawyers seem far more interested in milking huge $$$ out of rich clients, rather than battling the U.S. Gov't over the Constitution or peoples' rights.

The Al-Marri story is one of the greatest travesties of justice in U.S. history!

Have to agree

Though I think you'd be surprised at the hourly earnings of most lawyers. It's the elites of the bar, academy, and judiciary, with the power and prestige, that have most failed us by not questioning the obvious lies of 9/11, and the show trials and no trials that have been used to further the lies. And this is more than a matter of individual rights -- it also affects the ability of the government to propagandize us.

I'll tell you who failed us...

The scientists. I failed. The collapses are provable controlled demolition with freshmen physics.

Only a few people had the sanity at the time to see through the obvious misdirection by jumbo jet.

but... Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.

Mind control is o so very real. The general public is literally in a trance... when it snaps... watch out.


I had to follow it up with this message:

Looks like my understanding of Shakespeare may be wrong.

All the more reason for lawyers to show what they stand for.


This is putting your money where your mouth is!

Thanks for this, Ningen. I admire people who value the truth so highly they are willing to stick their necks (or at least professional reputations) out.

Read Shaffer's essay in Lew Rockwell

"Existential courage." Powerful words. Made me feel like a coward, and like one of the servo-mechanisms to the institutional order that Shaffer talks about.

I see what you're saying, but there is no reason this should reflect on my professional reputation. My arguments are Law 101 and common sense, and if the law professors and government lawyers on the list don't see that, they should think about their own reputations. I'm on the right side of history.

Lew Rockwell . .

where Morgan Reynolds got his start . . .

I guess Lew Rockwell is fine with the idea that real planes didn't hit the WTC. I guess they figure that's just what those questioning the official story need to make some real headway . . .

Don't you ever stop?

I first read Butler Shaffer's essay here:

When I did a search, I found that he published it at Lew Rockwell, so I used that copy.

It's a fine essay, and like my blog above, says nothing about the planes. Why are you trashing it?

Reynolds is an Austrian School economist.

Rockwell is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, "the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics."

Got it?

Lew Rockwell has published many articles about 9/11:

I doubt very much that Lew Rockwell, if he has looked at the evidence, is fine with the idea that real planes didn't hit the WTC. But his publishing articles by Morgan Reynolds doesn't mean he believes that. Regardless, your implication that he is conspiring to discredit 9/11 questioners is more of the typical slander.

I imagine a libertarian like him would view your Stalinist mentality with a mixture of amusement and contempt.

Your premise is unfounded that questioning the planes is keeping those that question the official story from making headway. What's keeping us from making headway is people like you, attacking people like me that are trying to look at the facts.

I see your blog introduces the NIST RFC of Steven Jones and Richard Gage. I'm still waiting for their explanation of aircraft debris found in physically impossible locations, which they treat as "real life" "key observables." That debris was obviously planted, like Atta's luggage, the Flight 93 red bandanas, and the crashproof passport.

I hope they will reconsider their position, which is scienfifically and forensically unsound.

Would you like to continue this debate? This blog wasn't about the planes until you made it about the planes, but I'm happy to debate the issue with you or anyone else.

I would recommend that you share the following

Thanks, George

I already sent the Patriots Question 9/11 list, which contains many of the people on your list, and specifically mentioned Horst Ehmke, Richard Falk, and Burns Weston. I like your intro and presentation, and will send it sometime.

I would have mentioned Francis Boyle, but I think he's been banned from that listserv for plain speaking.

He calls Ruth Wedgewood of Yale Law School "Wedgie the Kangaroo." That's awesome.

I like how Boyle talks about the anthrax--that's really suspicious and has fallen down the memory hole.

Gerry Spence. He's a hero.

I'd like to see Mike Papantonio on this list.

P.S. (7/6/2007) I think it is really sad that you started censoring debate. Since you wouldn't publish my response to Jon Gold at your blog on the issue, I assume that the view he stated in his comment "I think" is the real reason for censorship, as I stated in my response.