Support 911Blogger


Trials Without Crimes Or Evidence: Judge Rules Osama Bin Laden Death Photos Should Stay Secret

April 26, 2012 CNN

Trials Without Crimes Or Evidence - by Paul Craig Roberts

April 25, 2012

Andy Worthington is a superb reporter who has specialized in providing the facts of the US government’s illegal abuse of “detainees,” against whom no evidence exists. (Source) In an effort to create evidence, the US government has illegally resorted to torture. Torture produces false confessions, plea bargains, and false testimony against others in order to escape further torture.

For these reasons, in Anglo-American law self-incrimination secured through torture has been impermissible evidence for centuries. So also has been secret evidence withheld from the accused and his attorney. Secret evidence cannot be confronted. Secret evidence is distrusted as made-up in order to convict the innocent. The evidence is secret because it cannot stand the light of day.

The US government relies on secret evidence in its cases against alleged terrorists, claiming that national security would be threatened if the evidence were revealed. This is abject nonsense. It is an absurd claim that presenting evidence against a terrorist jeopardizes the national security of the United States.

To the contrary, not presenting evidence jeopardizes the security of each and every one of us. Once the government can convict defendants on the basis of secret evidence, even the concept of a fair trial will disappear. Fair trials are already history, but the concept lingers.

Secret evidence murders the concept of a fair trial. It murders justice and the rule of law. Secret evidence means anyone can be convicted of anything. As in Kafka’s The Trial,
people will cease to know the crimes for which they are being tried and convicted.

This extraordinary development in Anglo-American law, a development demanded by the unaccountable Bush/Obama Regime, has not resulted in impeachment proceedings; nor has it caused an uproar from Congress, the federal courts, the presstitute media, law schools, constitutional scholars, and bar associations.

Having bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory, Americans just want someone to pay. They don’t care who as long as someone pays. To accommodate this desire, the government has produced some “high value detainees” with Arab or Muslim names.
But instead of bringing these alleged malefactors to trial and presenting evidence against them, the government has kept them in torture dungeons for years trying to create through the application of pain and psychological breakdown guilt by self-incrimination in order to create a case against them.

The government has been unsuccessful and has nothing that it can bring to a real court. So the Bush/Obama Regime created and recreated “military tribunals” to lend “national security” credence to the absolute need that non-existent evidence be kept secret.

Andy Worthington in his numerous reports does a good job in providing the history of the detainees and their treatment. He deserves our commendation and support. But what I want to do is to ask some questions, not of Worthington, but about the idea that the US is under terrorist threat.

By this September, 9/11 will be eleven years ago. Yet despite the War on Terror, the loss of Americans’ privacy and civil liberties, an expenditure of trillions of dollars on numerous wars, violations of US and international laws against torture, and so forth, no one has been held accountable. Neither the perpetrators nor those whom the perpetrators outwitted, assuming that they are different people, have been held accountable. Going on 11 years and no trials of villains or chastisement of negligent public officials. This is remarkable.

The government’s account of 9/11 implies massive failure of all US security and intelligence agencies along with those of our NATO puppets and Israel’s Mossad. The government’s official line also implies the failure of the National Security Council, NORAD and the US Air Force, Air Traffic Control, Airport Security four times in one hour on the same morning. It implies the failure of the President, the Vice President, the National Security Adviser, the Secretary of Defense.

Many on the left and also libertarians find this apparent failure of the centralized and oppressive government so hopeful that they cling to the official “government failure” explanation of 9/11. However, such massive failure is simply unbelievable. How in the world could the US have survived the cold war with the Soviets if the US government were so totally incompetent?

If we attribute superhero powers to the 19 alleged hijackers, powers in excess of V’s in V for Vendetta or James Bond’s or Captain Marvel’s, and assume that these young terrorists, primarily Saudi Arabians, outwitted Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Tony Blair, along with the CIA, FBI, MI5 and MI6, Mossad, etc., one would have expected for the President, Congress, and the media to call for heads to roll. No more humiliating affront has ever been suffered by a major power than the US suffered on 9/11. Yet, absolutely no one, not even some lowly traffic controller, was scapegoated and held accountable for what is considered to be the most extraordinarily successful terrorist attack in human history, an attack so successful that it implies total negligence across the totality of the US government and that of all its allies.

This just doesn’t smell right. Total failure and no accountability. The most expensively funded security apparatus the world has ever known defeated by a handful of Saudi Arabians. How can anyone in the CIA, FBI, NSA, NORAD, and National Security Council hold up their heads? What a disgraced bunch of jerks and incompetents.

What do we need them for?

Consider the alleged hijackers. Despite allegedly being caught off guard by the 9/11 attacks, the FBI was soon able to identify the 19 hijackers despite the fact that apparently none of the alleged hijackers’ names are on the passenger lists of the airliners that they allegedly hijacked.

How did 19 passengers get on airplanes in the US without being on the passenger lists?

I do not personally know if the alleged hijackers were on the four airliners. Moreover, defenders of the official 9/11 story claim that the passenger lists released to the public were “victims lists,” not passenger lists, because the names of the hijackers were withheld and only released some four years later after 9/11 researchers had had years in which to confuse victims lists with passenger lists. This seems an odd explanation. Why encourage public misinformation for years by withholding the passenger lists and issuing victims lists in their place? It cannot have been to keep the hijackers’ names a secret as the FBI released a list of the hijackers several days after 9/11. Even more puzzling, if the hijackers’ names were on the airline passenger lists, why did it take the FBI several days to confirm the names and numbers of hijackers?

Researchers have found contradictions in the FBI’s accounts of the passenger lists with the FBI adding and subtracting names from its various lists and some names being misspelled, indicating possibly that the FBI doesn’t really know who the person is. The authenticity of the passenger lists that were finally released in 2005 is contested, and the list apparently was not presented as evidence by the FBI in the Moussaoui trial in 2006. David Ray Griffin has extensively researched the 9/11 story. In one of his books, 9/11 Ten Years Later, Griffin writes: “Although the FBI claimed that it had received flight manifests from the airlines by the morning of 9/11, the ‘manifests’ that appeared in 2005 had names that were not known to the FBI until a day or more after 9/11. These 2005 ‘manifests,’ therefore, could not have been the original manifests for the four 9/11 flights.”

The airlines themselves have not been forthcoming. We are left with the mystery of why simple and straightforward evidence, such as a list of passengers, was withheld for years and mired in secrecy and controversy.

We have the additional problem that the BBC and subsequently other news organizations established that 6 or 7 of the alleged hijackers on the FBI’s list are alive and well and have never been part of any terrorist plot.

These points are not even a beginning of the voluminous reasons that the government’s 9/11 story looks very thin.

But the American public, being throughly plugged into the Matrix, are not suspicious of the government’s thin story. Instead, they are suspicious of the facts and of those experts who are suspicious of the government’s story. Architects, engineers, scientists, first responders, pilots, and former public officials who raise objections to the official story are written off as conspiracy theorists. Why does an ignorant American public think it knows more than experts? Why do Americans believe a government that told them the intentional lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction despite the fact that the weapons inspectors reported to President Bush that Hussein had no such weapons? And now we see the same thing all over again with the alleged, but non-existent, Iranian nukes.

As Frantz Fanon wrote, the power of cognitive dissonance is extreme. It keeps people comfortable and safe from threatening information. Most Americans find the government’s lies preferable to the truth. They don’t want to be unplugged from the Matrix. The truth is too uncomfortable for emotionally and mentally weak Americans.

Worthington focuses on the harm being done to detainees. They have been abused for much of their lives. Their innocence or guilt cannot be established because the evidence is compromised by torture, self-incrimination, and coerced testimony against others. They stand convicted by the government’s accusation alone. These are real wrongs, and Worthington is correct to emphasize them.

In contrast, my focus is on the harm to America, on the harm to truth and truth’s power, on the harm to the rule of law and accountability to the people of the government and its agencies, on the harm to the moral fabric of the US government and to liberty in the United States.

As the adage goes, a fish rots from the head. As the government rots, so does the United States of America.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/04/25/trials-without-crimes-or-evidence/

More coverage and context...

Images of Osama bin Laden killing not to be released, judge orders: A US federal court has backed the Obama administration in refusing to release pictures or video from military operation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/27/images-osama-bin-laden-killing

CNN: Federal judge blocks release of bin Laden death photos
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/26/justice/bin-laden-photos/index.html?eref=rss_crime

Romney campaign: Obama ‘divides’ America by talking about bin Laden
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/27/romney-campaign-obama-divides-america-by-talking-about-bin-laden/

Fiasco.

No fingerprints, no body, no photos = no evidence. Protecting "national security"?. Yeah, right, Judge Boasberg. Don't you mean "protecting the PERSONAL SECURITY of those who orchestrated this whole fiasco"?

We've been had again.

CSI

Ironically all those CSI programs have been so popular. Bag it and tag it! We want Baggies!

This goes without saying

The crimes of 9/11 are still happening.

there is a bloc here at 911blogger...

who maintain the OBL assassination happened as reported by MSM.

Watch for them.

I do not trust them.

please post source-less opinions elsewhere.

From the http://911blogger.com/rules

Calling another user a liar, disinformation agent or any of the other related terms will not be tolerated. If you believe someone is lying post the facts and let the readers decide for themselves.

In the houses of shadow, everybody Lies.

I thought these 2 bonzos were 'doing the onion' hahaha....oops. They are serious. Quick, call the doctor. Haldol time.
The two air strikes bonzo [pentagon] 2 referred to flapping his papers around were underpants and shoes? Both patsies witnessed being led on to aircraft around security by operatives in blue shirts and tan pants. Who wears that as a uniform?
Why would anyone anywhere ever think crap like this does anything more than earn a laugh track in La La land?

The LAW? in Amercia? where was that? when was that?
Parody.

C-SPAN 9/11 Debate

FYI.

C-SPAN is now advertising that they will air the Frum-Tarpley-Kay 9/11 debate this Saturday at 8pm EST.

http://www.booktv.org/Program/13384/WATCH+LIVE+Today+630pm+ET+911+False+Flags+and+Black+Ops+with+Jonathan+Kay+and+Webster+...

Debate on "9/11, False Flags, and Black Ops" with Jonathan Kay and Webster Tarpley

The debate...

Thanks for the heads-up. I caught the last 30 minutes.

Mr. Tarpley clearly wasted the opportunity to present hard evidence though to be fair they were each given only 20 minutes as best I could tell. I'm not sure agreeing to such a time limited forum is wise as it plays into the broad swipe generalities that Mr. Kay favors. Here are some examples of the hard evidence and key points I would share if I were given this forum:

1) Conspiracies are not uncommon. All covert operations ARE conspiracies (see Iran/Contra scandal, etc., etc., etc.).
2) The Anthrax attacks WERE an 'inside job' -- the anthrax came from US labs/sources (FBI/Tom Ridge) -- though they claim it was a 'lone nut' who oddly enough was able to mail it from the two locations that the alleged 9/11 Al Qaida members were living prior to the attack. No trial of the accused -- Mr. Bruce Ivins, now deceased -- has ever been held. ABC reported several 'inside sources' that said a binder compound of bentonite (Iraq had used this) was in the samples though this was not true and ABC never revealed these sources nor recanted the story. A story that Mr. Atta had been passed a vial of anthrax in Prague by Iraqis turned out to be false (it never happened).
3) The Pentagon was hit by an airliner 34 minutes AFTER the second tower was hit and did so without being contested. Minetta has given sworn testimony before the 9/11 commission that the PEOC was monitoring this flight for apprx 50 miles of the end of its flight into DC (arguably the most secure airspace in the country).
4) WTC-7 was NOT hit by an aircraft, but collapsed at absolute free-fall speed for 2.28 seconds (NIST) due to fire only (NIST) though no steel framed super structure has ever exhibited this phenomenom before nor since 9/11. This collapse acceleration is physically impossible due to fire only. New York Housing Authority official Barry Jennings -- now deceased -- gave witness on video that tower 7 had explosions inside prior to its collapse.
5) Physics teacher David Chandler, among others, have noted that the twin towers collapsed at 2/3 of free-fall acceleration and never exhibited deceleration through the visible/measurable portion of their collapse -- another impossibility. Explosive ejections can be seen in the videos during the collapse well ahead of the collapse front.
6) There are 118 witnesses to explosions on 9/11 among the NY first responders interviewed, as well as scores of others. A van packed with explosives was caught near the GW Bridge on 9/11 (CBS, et al) driven by two Israeli nationals. A second van with 5 Israeli nationals was stopped on 9/11 after a witness saw 3 men standing on top of the van in New Jersey filming and "celebrating" the attack on the towers (this film has not been released to my knowledge).
7) Molten steel/metal was observed by many witnesses in the rubble piles in the days and weeks after 9/11 and iron micro-spheres were found in dust samples (USGS/FEMA/RJ Lee/Stephen Jones, PhD). Office fires and jet fuel cannot account for the high temperatures required to do this. The 1993 attack on the WTC WAS done with explosives though when NIST was asked if they had tested for explosives they answered 'no'.

Etc..

Here's the show:

This debate occurred April 2 and was broadcast last night. I agree that Tarpley wasted most of his allotted time on historical examples and could have done better to follow your presentation outline. I don't want to promote Tarpley here -- I just want people to have the chance to watch for themselves.

I do like that audience members laughed at Kay when he stated that we have an independent media here in the US. He seemed very nervous and squirmy, trying to play some of Shermer's cards. David Frum was clearly aligned with Kay.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/305586-1

Thanks RL

Tarpley did a fine job sticking to his expertise.

Thanks for the link...

I just watched Jonathan Kay's full presentation having already seen Mr. Tarpley's talk.

Mr. Frum's role as 'moderator' was clearly biased, roll-eyes and all. I have to say that Mr. Kay did about as good a job as one can do in defending the official version of events when one feels no responsibility to the FACTS. Honestly, I found myself agreeing with many of his broad generalities concerning the pitfalls of human nature that one should be cognizant of when going in. However, the fact that he can't "imagine it" is not evidence. Incredulity is not an argument.

I left out one fundamentally important point in the above list: prior knowledge. Two peer reviewed papers (one by Poteshman and the other by Chesney) clearly indicate 'informed securities trading' prior to 9/11. Mr. Kay assured us that "someone would talk" and that clearly seems not to be the case. My second question to Kay would be 'who was punished?' It is COMMON for law enforcement to threaten uncooperative perpetrators, accessories and/or witnesses with legal sanction in order to gain evidence. No one is 'punished' (nay, they're promoted!) so no one has an incentive to talk.

Bottom line: Mr Kay is right that this sort of revelation would be dangerous to this Republic. If we are correct -- and I believe we are -- it would be the death of the current power structure. Further, it would be a threat to those of us that had nothing to do with these events as it would be extremely destabilizing. Some friends I've talked to just can't 'go there' as the potential chaos is too frightening.

The Best 9/11 Evidence Was Omitted

A big missed opportunity that probably left an impression with the general viewer that our views are not evidence based.