9/11 Defense Lawyer Condemns NYC Illegal Show Trial

Defense lawyer Scott Fenstermaker in an interview with The Populist describes how he was blocked by the government from representing 9/11 detainees and how the judges and lawyers in the New York trial may themselves be prosecuted in a future war crimes tribunal.

Scott Fenstermaker, the 9/11 Lawyer, Speaks Out The Populist, November 30th, 2009

Scott Fenstermaker has become the lightning rod for 9/11. He is the only defense lawyer mentioned in the upcoming trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four co-conspirators. Although he won’t be defending them in court, he’s been pilloried by the press for daring to suggest that these detainees have any legal rights.

I called him this weekend, and asked him why.

Scott Fenstermaker has represented Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali in various legal proceedings at Guantanamo Bay. Mr. Ali stands accused of conspiracy, murder, destruction of property, hijacking, and terrorism for his part in the September 11th attacks. I could not understand why Mr. Fenstermaker would not defend his client in court, so I began the interview by asking him to clarify this:

TP: Why won’t you represent Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali when he stands trial in New York for the September 11th attacks?

SF: The government would not let me represent him.

TP: Why not?

SF: Well, that’s a good question. The government goes crazy every time the detainees want me to represent them, and the government doesn’t like it.

TP: How does the government prevent you from representing the detainees?

SF: The government wants to control who represents the detainees. The government not only wants to, but it is. The government does this by controlling the judges. The judges are doing exactly what the government wants them to do in these cases. The judges ask what the government wants them to do, and then they do it.

Mr. Fenstermaker flew to Guantanamo Bay when he found out that Ali and four other detainees would stand trial in Federal Court for the 9/11 attacks. On November 21st he told the New York Times that Mr. Ali and his co-defendants will plead not guilty “so they can have a trial and try to get their message out”. Thus began last week’s media circus.

Bill O’Reilly called him “a weasel” on national television. David Horowitz anointed him a member of the “traitor class”. Even the highbrow Huffington Post accused Mr. Fenstermaker of “bringing his own politics to the case”.

Sam Stein wrote the hit piece for the Huffington Post. He quoted “an employee with an NGO working on national security issues”. But he did not name this mysterious employee, or the Non-Government Organization.

Stein’s source said that “Fenstermaker was causing a lot of trouble and was in no way qualified to be representing these guys but had managed to set up a relationship with these detainees”. I read parts of Stein’s essay to Mr. Fenstermaker, and he had no doubt about the NGO.

TP: Who is the Non Government Organization?

SF: The American Civil Liberties Union. They’re working with the government and the judges involved in the cases.

We spoke at length about the ACLU’s collusion with the US Government. In my opinion, this is why the Obama administration is so confident these alleged 9/11 conspirators will be convicted and sentenced to death. Since they will be representing themselves, the trial will be a sham, a show for the American People.

TP: You mean their Government appointed legal defenders would not be working in their best interests?

SF: Yes, that’s why they’ve rejected assigned counsel.

TP: Is that why they are going to represent themselves at trial?

SF: Yes.

I asked Scott Fenstermaker a final series of questions to clarify his legal representation of Mr. Ali and the other defendants at the upcoming trial. I still could not believe that five men accused of the most heinous crimes in US history would try to defend themselves in court. I asked Mr. Fenstermaker if there was any chance he would defend Mr. Ali.

TP: Did you ask Mr Ali if you could represent him at the trial in New York?

SF: No.

TP: Do you plan to ask Mr Ali if you could represent him?

SF: No.

TP: What if Mr. Ali or one of the other defendants asks you to defend them in court?

SF: I would refuse to do it.

TP: Why?

SF: Because I think the international community may one day open up a war crimes investigation into the war on terror, and a lot of these judges and lawyers may be prosecuted themselves.

SF: It’s illegal, what we’re doing with these detainees.

See also: An Interview with Scott Fenstermaker The Populist, December 7th, 2009

Amazing post

It baffles me that this post has not attracted more attention and comment. The interview (parts I and II) are great. Part III is still coming. Basically, Fenstermaker says he will not be the attorney to any of the defendants, even if they asked him, because he believes the proceedings will eventually be material for an international war crimes tribunal, and judges and anyone else involved could be charged, the proceedings are so flawed.

I agree pduveen

This is a very important interview that should receive wide distribution within and beyond the 9/11 Truth community. It sheds light on exactly what the government is doing with these show trials and precisely what we should expect in terms of how the media represents our movement. I was thinking after reading it about the Niemöller "First they came for the Communists" poem. In this instance they're going after the alleged terrorists. They've rounded them up, imprisoned them, tortured them for years and now they are putting on both civilian and military show trials -- and the American people and the people of the world are allowing them to get away with this.

The question is, who is next? We already know how close WE are to being labeled "terrorists". Just as 9/11 was pulled off in broad daylight, cameras at the ready, this, too, will be an event staged to underscore the validity of the 9/11 narrative. If we allow this to stand, all of us are doomed. I'm not being theatrical but quite serious.

It may be that these show trials are thought necessary precisely because of the effectiveness of the Truth movement. True we are still very much a minority but we are a growing minority. The establishment is working over time to keep their narrative in place and they do this by acting as if any questions about it are not even worthy of discussion. The government and media's most effective tool is silence. The one thing we can be certain is that these trials will not allow the introduction of ANY evidence that might contradict this prevailing narrative. If they succeed at this the establishment believes (I think) they will have shot the Truth movement out of the water and sealed their version of history for all time.

This must not be allowed to happen. If it does, it will be the 'go ahead' for the full-on fascist state that is waiting in the wings. All it will need is a 'provocation' to justify it in the minds of the masses.

Yes - it desperately needs to be told

The significance of Fenstermaker's whistle-blowing is inversely proportional to the amount of media attention it will receive. One heroic lawyer cannot be allowed to expose the carefully orchestrated charade. It falls to us to disseminate it within and beyond the 9/11 Truth community.

An Interview with Scott Fenstermaker, Part II - in which he provides context to the much trumpeted guilty pleas of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi.

What happened to Lawyers for 9/11 Truth?

http://www.l911t.com/ ???

John E. Kroll - Denmark

judicial run rabbit run around.

show trial. from the start. Controlled exposition. So soon after NYCCAN disallowed[judge:what is building 7?]. If this were not totally controlled it would not be happening.