Kristen Breitweiser responds to Obama's military tribunals for alleged 9/11 conspirators


Published on Tuesday, April 5, 2011 by The Huffington Post
The Sad Defeat of Our Constitution
by Kristen Breitweiser
Today I was given two hours of "advance notice" regarding DOJ's decision to not prosecute the remaining alleged 9/11 conspirators in an open court of law. According to DOJ's statement, the remaining individuals will be sent to military tribunals.

I recognize that there are many, many other things for Americans to be upset with today, but I hope everyone can take a second to contemplate this decision and recognize what it says about President Obama, the Department of Justice, and the United States.

As for the Department of Justice, it shows their inability to prosecute individuals who are responsible for the death of 3,000 people on the morning of 9/11. Apparently our Constitution and judicial system -- two of the very cornerstones that make America so great and used to set such a shining example to the rest of the world -- are not adequately set up to respond to or deal with the aftermath of terrorism. To me, this is a startling and dismal acknowledgment that perhaps Osama Bin Laden did, in fact, win on the morning of 9/11. And chillingly, I wonder whether it wasn't just the steel towers that were brought down and incinerated on 9/11, but the yellowed pages of our U.S. Constitution, as well.

And what does it say about the solemn capabilities of our Department of Justice if it is left to "subcontract out" its duties and responsibilities to the Department of Defense? We should all think about that scary notion for a bit. But, perhaps more disturbingly recognize that it is not occurring under the tutelage of Bush and Cheney, rather it is coming at the hands of Obama.

At least when President Bush was in office, he was candid about his feelings regarding the alleged 9/11 conspirators in our custody. He didn't care about them. He allowed them to be tortured. He was fine letting them rot in the heat of Guantanamo for all of eternity. They were less than human to him and he certainly was never going to afford them the benefits of our U.S. Constitution or the Geneva Conventions. That was President Bush. Whether you agreed or disagreed with him, you, at least, knew where he stood. And you could, like it or not, rely on his word.

For the past two years, it's been President Obama in the Oval Office. Quite early on in his presidency, Obama invited the 9/11 families to the White House to discuss 9/11-related issues. During this meeting in Feb '09 the topic of closing Guantanamo and the use of Article 3 courts to prosecute the remaining alleged 9/11 conspirators was discussed. Many of us were incredibly relieved to learn that as a matter of course President Obama was going to shut down Guantanamo and support the open prosecution of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. He gave us -- the various widows and children at the meeting -- his golden word. He shook our hands. He smiled broadly. He posed for pictures. (In fact, several weeks later many of the widows even received hand signed courtesy copies of these photos from Obama -- a nice touch. I did not receive such a photo.)

It's been almost ten years now since my husband was killed. My daughter has gone from a 2-year-old to a 12-year-old. Our country has started two -- and now maybe three -- pointless, misguided, costly wars. And if it wasn't already difficult enough to accept that Osama Bin Laden will probably never be caught or held accountable, now I have to swallow the fact that I will never see constitutional justice for the handful of individuals we actually hold in custody. In short, justice in a court of law for the murder of my husband and 3,000 others will never come.

I suppose in life timing is everything. To me, as a lawyer and a 9/11 widow, DOJ's announcement today acknowledges the sad defeat of our U.S. Constitution when it comes to 9/11. How truly tragic in my eyes. And you would think that a man who was once a constitutional law professor might feel the same way. Yet, not so much for President Barack Obama who has chosen this great day to announce his billion-dollar campaign for re-election. His slogan asking us to "join in" by writing him a check.

First, I've never been much of an "in"-sider. Second, I truly wonder how you can trust a leader who carries no compunction to keep his promises or his word -- whether those words and promises were made in support of gay rights, to not start or perpetuate illegal/useless/costly military campaigns (or wars), in support of environmental causes even to the detriment of big business, to put an immediate end to torture and unlawful detainment, to rein in the bloat and greed of Wall Street, to oppose gun control, or to correct the broad overreach of a previous administration.

But perhaps most pointedly, if you can't trust what a man says to a group of widows and children, then what words and promises of his can you trust?

So President Obama, am I IN? Will you be receiving my check?

Hell no.

Copyright © 2011, Inc.
Kristen Breitweiser, 9/11 widow and activist, is known for pressuring official Washington to provide a public accounting to the American people of what went wrong on the morning of September 11 and in the months leading up to the disaster that claimed the life of her husband and more than 3000 others.

Jersey Girls

First of all, Osama Bin laden is not wanted by the FBI for 9/11, because there's not enough evidence to support such a charge. Kristen knows this.
Second, it appears that a possible and badly needed new investigation into 9/11, because of all the new evidence and research that has emerged since, was never one of the "9/11-related issues that was discussed during this White House invitation". Seems to me that such thing would make it clear that not a lot was going to be done about 9/11.
After that, on June 4th, Barack tells the world to "make no mistake, these (the official story) are not opinions to be debated, these are facts to be dealt with". He has not closed Guantanamo Bay. He indeed is not be trusted to keep his word, but what can one expect from a president who basically has to do what he's told by others?
Of course, they got the wrong guys in custody, now ready to be convicted out of sight of the public. We need a public trial soon, with the familiar names on the accused side, to provide accountibility for their actions. I can only dream of such an image, what the hell is going on in this world that you have loads of evidence and facts that warrant and require a new investigation into a terrible crime, and now we're 10 years after the fact, and absolutely NO ONE has had to face up in a court of law to explain themselves concerning what how and why they did what they did? What on earth is going on if you have proof that all kinds of rules haven't been followed, you point that out to the opposing party, and they just ignore deny or blatantly claim you're wrong without giving as much as a remotely credible argument for it? What's worse, the simple fact that such an incomprehensible mafia-like reaction appears to bear no consequences whatsoever, is a sign to me that our chances in this are "not all that great".

These mafia-types will not go away by themselves of course, they will likely have to be forced out (like most people in power), and I think there's a good chance that maybe they'd rather die than to bear responsibility for their actions, lose their empire, and having no control anymore. I don't think these people will ever make it to court alive, if they'll ever be officially indicted. However that shouldn't reduce our focus to spread the info and awareness.
I still think there's a chance, if enough people and enough members of the military achieve the awareness and then gain the courage to stand up and "do what's right", then something might happen. But what is "enough"? How much more can the people take before they realize they have to act, now?

Would Kristen be willing to send a check to Ron Paul when he runs as an independent in 2012, together with who knows, Jessy Ventura? How much of a difference will that duo make if it ever comes to that?

One Guantanamo Trial That Will Be Held in New York

One Guantanamo Trial That Will Be Held in New York

Posted on Apr 5, 2011

By Amy Goodman

On the same day President Barack Obama formally launched his re-election campaign, his attorney general, Eric Holder, announced that key suspects in the 9/11 attacks would be tried not in federal court, but through controversial military commissions at Guantanamo. Holder blamed members of Congress, who he said “have intervened and imposed restrictions blocking the administration from bringing any Guantanamo detainees to trial in the United States.” Nevertheless, one Guantanamo case will be tried in New York. No, not the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any of his alleged co-conspirators. This week, the New York State Supreme Court will hear the case against Dr. John Leso, a psychologist who is accused of participating in torture at the Gitmo prison camp that Obama pledged, and failed, to close.

The case was brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA) on behalf of Dr. Steven Reisner. Reisner, a New York psychologist and adviser to Physicians for Human Rights, is at the center of a growing group of psychologists campaigning against the participation of psychologists in the U.S. government’s interrogation programs, which they say amounts to torture. Unlike the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the largest association of psychologists in the world, has refused to implement a resolution passed by its membership barring APA members from participating in interrogations at sites where international law or the Geneva Conventions are being violated. Reisner, a child of Holocaust survivors, is running for president of the APA, in part to force it to comply with the resolution.


Who is 'Al Qaeda?'

First of all Kristen deserves to attend the trial and see the purported evidence linking KSM to 9/11 for herself. What is there beyond the torture confession or delusional martyr confession? Let's see the evidence of how the hijackers were funded and exactly who they were connected to. What links exist between Al Qaeda and Intelligence services or between Bin Laden and the US government?

Yes, I suspect that Kristen has a deeper understanding of the issue after all she's been through. I was especially encouraged to read some great comments at HuffPo. Here are two from Huffington Post Super-user GuiltD:

"Al Qaeda isn't a pure organization. It is mixed with intelligence agency meddlings and double agents, drug and arms trade. It's not pure, and countries use Al Qaeda to get their agendas done such as the Phillipines attacking itself and blaming Al Qaeda. Bin Laden has never been officially indicted for 9/11, so let's stop saying it was his attack because there is no hard proof."

"Also I hope you know that you really should have a full understanding of research into Al Qaeda that's not presented to you by corporate media. It's important to understand how people like Bin Laden's mentor Sheikh Abdullah Azzam worked for the CIA."

Her courage

trumps everything.

Video of Hartford event Watch

Video of Hartford event

Watch footage of the recent Hartford event, featuring Richard Gage, and many others. Very important presentations by Graeme MacQueen, Kevin Ryan, and Tony Szamboti.

The conference was "Investigate Building 7: A Call to Reexamine the Most Important Event of Our Time," held March 26, 2011, at the University of Hartford, CT. Speakers included architect Richard Gage, family members Manny Badillo and Bob McIlvaine; attorney Dr. William Pepper; professor Dr. Graeme McQueen; engineers Kevin Ryan and Tony Szamboti; filmmaker John Kirby; and journalists Mark Crispin Miller, Leslie Griffith, Craig Unger, and Dick Russell.




Is the dismissed indictment against KSM.

I haven't had a chance to read it yet. I'm wondering how much of this wasn't mentioned in the 9/11 Report.


pg 40-41
"COUNT NINE Destruction of the Twin Towers

...the defendants, and others known and unknown, unlawfully, maliciously, and knowingly damaged and destroyed, by means of fire and explosives, buildings, vehicles, and other real and personal property used in interstate and foreign commerce and in activities affecting interstate and foreign commerce, to wit, the destruction and damage of two commercial airplanes, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, and surrounding structures and property in New York City, resulting in the deaths on and after September 11,2001, of the first 2,752 persons named on pages 45 through 80 of this Indictment, including hundreds of public safety officers performing duties as a direct and proximate result ofthe said damage and destruction.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 844(i) and 2.)"




Oh so there were explosives? But NIST didn't do tests for explosives. Why would it? Fires brought the buildings down…

So KSM and Ramzi are being charged with….using explosives to "KNOWINGLY DAMAGE AND DESTROYED , ….., BUILDINGS, VEHICLES, AND OTHER REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY.."

Anybody else ever read a legal brief about EXPLOSIVES and FIRE being involved in the destruction of the Twin Towers? Well this one does, and it's from Eric Holder's office.

Not so surprising

that he is indicted for setting explosives, as he already admitted it,if you take George Bush word for real:

Bush: For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

Clearly a clever line of defense...

Not really

Unfortunately, this is a canard, on par with Rumsfeld's alleged Pentagon 'missile' slip up, and it has been known as such for a long time. It's promoted by misinformation outlets on Youtube such as "LoneLantern". One anonymous commenter in that thread had the situation pegged five years ago:

Bush's speech

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was involved in many different terrorist plots, not only Sept. 11th. The presidents reference to him could have been about any number of attacks, not only Sept. 11th. Watching the "truth" movement grab onto any scrap of wording and spin it in ways that would make producers and writers in the fox news press room blush is what made me distance myself from it. How that spin is gobbeled up by the "ever important foot soldiers" without question made me ignore it. Im well aware of the fact that the truth isnt being offered up by our governement, and never will, but the manipulation of every word from the administration reaks of shear desperation, ignorance, and if I were to read as much into it as what was read into Bush's speach... I hope you can follow my line of thought. I know Ill be told to "wake up!" and that Im stupid, but before you open your mouths, or crack your knuckles for some furious key typing, question who put those words in your head that your about to type. The same speel is rattled out verbatim by every foot soldier. Total nonsense, think for yourselves folks, check the facts these people try to sppon feed you. The assurances that what youre hearing or reading has been researched, checked, and has sources is a warning signal for you to go check what youre being told. The claims made before those statements never seem to hold up after any scrutiny. Anyone with the ability to google Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds name would have seen that he was involved in many more terrorist plots than Sept. 11th. Saying that this is some sort of admition by Bush to explosives being involved in 9/11 is utter crap and an embarresment to anyone that chooses to exercise judgement and values the appearance of sanity. Wild allegations scare off potential convertees to your movement. Choose your words wisely.

I encourage everyone to question the truth movement just as they would our government.

No approximate and direct link

in Bush speach, right, but now in the indictment.

We should not question the truth movement, but Bush to clarify his words or the torturers what KSM really had said.

The full context

Please read the full speech at the link below. Here is the relevant excerpt:

Right here in the Oval Office, I get briefed nearly every morning about the nature of this world, and I get briefed about the desire of an enemy to hurt America. And it's a sobering experience, as I'm sure you can imagine. I wish that weren't the case, you know. But it is the case. And, therefore, I believe it is vital that our folks on the front line have the tools necessary to protect the American people.

There are two vital pieces of legislation in Congress now that I think are necessary to help us win the war on terror. We will work with members of both parties to get legislation that works out of the Congress. The first bill will allow us to use military commissions to try suspected terrorists for war crimes. We need the legislation because the Supreme Court recently ruled that military commissions must be explicitly authorized by Congress. So we're working with Congress. The Supreme Court said, you must work with Congress; we are working with Congress to get a good piece of legislation out.

The bill I have proposed will ensure that suspected terrorists will receive full and fair trials, without revealing to them our nation's sensitive intelligence secrets. As soon as Congress acts on this bill, the man our intelligence agencies believe helped orchestrate the 9/11 attacks can face justice.

The bill would also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured terrorists. The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States.

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

He gave us information that helped uncover al Qaeda cells' efforts to obtain biological weapons.

We've also learned information from the CIA program that has helped stop other plots, including attacks on the U.S. Marine base in East Africa, or American consulate in Pakistan, or Britain's Heathrow Airport. This program has been one of the most vital tools in our efforts to protect this country. It's been invaluable to our country, and it's invaluable to our allies.

Bush was speaking of "terrorist plots" he wanted to prevent, and how he wanted to use the appropriate "tools" (torture and spying on you and me) to help make that happen.

This wasn't about bombs in the WTC on 9/11 at all, and it's a shame people are falling for it.


The meaning is not clear, but you have no interpretational sovereignty do dismiss the connection outhand. Everytime you do this I do not like it. You are no truth instance or judge, even if you do may think you. This is pure reaction. Nothing other than the style of "debunkers", who claim to have the sovereignity about ALL facts spun in their way, too.

To clarify what Bush meant one had to ask him. But as I remember not one single white house approved press corps lapdog asked any question in this direction. They should have.

I'm sorry

if you don't like it.

I react instantly because I've seen this many times before.

Here, for example (ONE MILLION VIEWS:)

Taken TOTALLY out of context.

Would spin aptly describe what is done above, by "lonelantern"? I think so.

Well, the same author, (who recently interviewed Kokesh) has multiple such extremely misleading clips on his channel.

ONE MILLION PEOPLE misled into believing a canard. I take that VERY seriously.

I guess it's possible they're

I guess it's possible they're referring to the planes as "explosive?" Surely, they wouldn't admit to something like explosives. If they do, and say that KSM & friends planted explosives, then, like NORAD, Philip Zelikow, ties between the ISI and "Al-Qaeda," Saudi Arabia financing "Al-Qaeda," etc... the "9/11 Truth Movement" would be proven "right" again. However, it wouldn't be shown in that light. It would be spun into static by the media, et al or completely ignored.

I wonder if they're referring to the bombs that were supposedly on the planes.

I suspect

it nothing more than legalese. There is no legal text that appropriately covers crashing a commercial aircraft into a building deliberately, using its kinetic energy and explosive fuel as a weapon. 844(i) is probably the next best thing.

Perhaps you could ask Coleen?


Which of the torture sessions( 183 times) that KSM was water boarded did he admit to explosives?

My guess was the 73rd session.


has never admitted placing explosives in the WTC on 9/11, not even under torture.

Because KSM supposedly

Because KSM supposedly confessed to Yosri Fouda before being captured, I believe they could have had a case against him without mentioning the tortured testimony. In other words, it might not have been the revelations of torture people are trying to avoid by having military commissions instead of civilian trials. It was probably to avoid whatever information could come out in a less controllable civilian trial. Like what happened at the "Moussaoui Trial."

Coleen Rowley met Fouda and thinks he's the real deal. Kristen Breitweiser mentioned this confession here.

That is why when it was announced that the trials would be held in NYC, I made these flyers, rather than promote the idea that KSM is "innocent."


And which is why I am "LIHOP-plus" and not "MIHOP", which is code for no hijackers, no passengers and sometimes, no planes. I have no qualms about saying this publicly. There's seems to be a profound lack of understanding and willingness to learn about Islamic militancy and how it ties in with our intelligence services. It would require departing from the conventional 9/11 Truth paradigm for many, who are wedded to stereotypical "Muslims in caves in Afghanistan" type imagery.

I wonder about different things, besides the excellent nanothermite paper... I wonder about things like... what did they do with Moussaoui's laptop before 9/11 when they got it. Moussaoui is a real man, not a fake man. KSM is a real man, not a fake man. Ali Mohamed is a real man, not a fake man. There was a real plan, not a fake plan. Not everything is fake.


Agree, except I don't acknowledge the false left/right paradigm of the 9/11 Truth Movement (LIHOP/MIHOP).

I agree

with you on that one, but I am explicitly mentioning it because I know what the average truther thinks when he/she reads my comments and what they then want to know: "who is this guy and what does he believe?".... well, I'm not going to be vague about it. I think the proper way to defuse that paradigm is to deny its use as a cross-examination tool, i.e. the "are you a fake or a real truther", "do you believe this or that or else"- grilling.

But do you acknowledge both cover-ups?

The Kean Report and the NIST Report? Or just the Kean Report? You seem to be not-at-all-vigilant about the second cover-up.

I admire your demands to be credible, but there is nothing credible about ignoring science or embracing scientific fraud. Does your tent include the scientific papers and Journal of 911 Studies?

Science must be inside the tent. For crediblity's sake.


I thought I've mentioned having problems with the JICI, the DoD IG, the CIA IG, the PENTTBOM investigation, etc... before, and the problems with NIST's report in Fact #45 of my facts piece, and even mention the nano-thermite paper, even though it was found that one of the peer reviewers of the nano-thermite paper suggested the passengers were alive and well and living on a tropical island.

Whose science? Judy Wood's? Jim Fetzer's? Morgan Reynolds? You do things your way, and I will do things my way.

I find it curious

that e.g. Jason Burke never mentions the FBI's involvement in the 93 WTC bombing.

Bush's speech is a herring. But

The Indictment is the key.

1.It's recent, its not a slip up by a former President.

2. In a criminal indictment, the document formally spells out the crime committed and provides a brief description of the nature of the crime and the details, naming an accused suspect. If someone is being indicted for committing multiple crimes, the criminal indictment will include a separate “count” for each crime. For example, someone could be indicted on one count of kidnapping and one count of murder if he or she is believed to have kidnapped and murdered someone.

To spell out that KSM is responsible for the deliberate destruction of property by use of fire and explosives in a formal charge , is no slip of the tongue. This is a Justice Dept. document that many lawyers would have vetted again and again before this could go public.

The chosen language reflects evidence to support the claim the Justice Dept would have made to a Grand Jury.

The onus is on THEM to Clarify, not us.

Yeah sure

I wasn't talking about the indictment, but about the Bush speech.

About the indictment, I suppose you are talking about page 41, where it says:

(...) the defendants, and others known and unknown, unlawfully, maliciously, and knowingly damaged and destroyed, by means of fire and explosives, buildings, vehicles, and other real and personal property used in interstate and foreign commerce and in activities affecting interstate and foreign commerce, to wit, the destruction and damage of two commercial airplanes, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, and surrounding structures and property in New York City, resulting in the deaths on and after September 11, 2001, of the first 2,752 persons names on pages 45 through 80 of this Indictment, including hundreds of public safety officers performing duties as a direct and proximate result of the said damage and destruction.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 844(i) and 2.)

Looking at title 18, section 844(i), it says:

(i) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both; and if personal injury results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be imprisoned for not less than 7 years and not more than 40 years, fined under this title, or both; and if death results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall also be subject to imprisonment for any term of years, or to the death penalty or to life imprisonment.

Crashing a plane into a building is explosive, (large fuel-air explosion) and causes lots of fire.

They are using the exact language of the law, since there is no exact language in the law to describe using a commercial aircraft as a missile, so they used the nearest thing, describing in broad, generic terms what happened.

I understand one might wish that the United States government admitted that there were explosives in the World Trade Center after years of sophisticated stonewalling by NIST, but I think that's rather naive. This is another wild goose chase, if you ask me. (Sorry, but better if I looked this up and told you than if a debunker did)

Jon could ask Coleen Rowley if I'm right or wrong - she's an expert in this field.

I'm interested in how the

I'm interested in how the Justice Department is being used to frame KSM and his goons for 9/11 the 3 buildings destruction.

THEIR documents are the things to be scrutinized.

It's a continued education course for we who have taken this cause to heart.


One of the reasons Obama and Holder wanted a trial in NYC was to "debunk" conspiracy theories and to demonstrate the legality of the prosecution of these men. Sunstein would probably agree. They wanted a show trial + "look how Constitutional the United States still is".


But now that they won't have that trial, i guess those crazy conspiracists …have more ammo.

On the same day Obama announced his bid for reelection, the president agreed to a military trial he once opposed to be held at a prison he once vowed to close.

Here's a statement from Rep. Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the Homeland Security Committee:

"Today's decision to abandon plans to try admitted 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators in civilian court in New York City is a long-awaited step in the right direction.
As I have been saying since day one, these terror trials belong in a military commission at Guantanamo. I am absolutely shocked that it took Attorney General Holder 507 days to come to this realization.
Today's reversal is yet another vindication of President Bush's detention policies by the Obama Administration, and is welcome news to the families of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, who will finally see long-awaited justice"

Here's Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): "This means with certainty that the trial will not be in New York. While not unexpected, this is the final nail in the coffin of that wrong-headed idea. I have always said that the perpetrators of this horrible crime should get the ultimate penalty, and I believe this proposal by the administration can make that happen."

Both sides agree.

There should be no trial, and no more questions and pesky court cases.

I don't know about Holder

but I have my own theory as to why Obama turned out to be what he is today... and it's outlined in my first blog post here on blogger.

But yeah, they're not going to have their show trial in public, they're going to execute a group of men who had no trial whatsoever. It's a scandal and an affront by any measure.

Agree with your first blog

and your comments to it Obama is cowed.


Agree with your first blog

and your comments to it.

Obama is cowed by The "Deep State" behind U.S. democracy