Law

9/11 as False Flag: Why International Law Must Dare to Care

Auckland University of Technology
January 10, 2016
Emory International Law Review, Forthcoming

Abstract:      

At the heart of contemporary international law lies a paradox: The attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 have justified nearly fifteen years of international war, yet the official international community, embodied principally in the United Nations, has failed to question or even scrutinize the U.S. Government’s account of those attacks. Despite the impressive and serious body of literature that has emerged to suggest that 9/11 was a classic (if unprecedentedly monstrous) false-flag attack, international statesmen, following the lead of scholars, have acted as if there is no controversy whatsoever. This disconnect between the growing (alternative) evidentiary record of state responsibility for the attacks and the focus of international institutions is impossible to sustain if those institutions are to maintain any semblance of viability and meaning. 

In a three-step process, this Article seeks to connect the international community to the possible reality of 9/11-as-false-flag. First, it shows that it is highly rational to question the official 9/11 account given the historical record of the first half of the twentieth century, which reveals a pattern of false flag attacks over which the international community openly fretted and tried to exercise jurisdiction. Second, it analyzes the reasons why intellectual elites and the statesmen they influence are behaving irrationally in not inquiring into the possibility of 9/11-as-false-flag, deconstructing a multi-faceted motive into all its unsavory parts. Third, it argues that the means for ceasing this irrational behavior is readily available, as the United Nations need only carry out its core and incontrovertible “jury” function of determining the existence of aggression in order to exercise a long-overdue oversight of the official 9/11 narrative.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2713267

CIT is useless

UPDATE 8/15/10: Added a segment about closing statements.

Originally posted: http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/2010/08/cit-is-useless.html

Some time ago I wrote an article about the importance of not wasting time on CIT. Most of their followers are impossible to convince and consequently the endless debates with them are entirely fruitless, resulting in nothing more than distraction. But that's not to say we should ignore them completely. Just because we ignore them doesn't mean they won't be zipping around spouting their flawed testimony, their aggressive behavior, anything that discredits those of us who are careful and have realistic standards of evidence.

There's an issue I just don't see talked about often enough in regards to CIT. People are ready to talk about the things I mentioned above and more. The contradicting testimony, the over-zealous nature of their followers, the fact that the testimony contradicts physical evidence, all these things that relate to debunking them. What I don't see talked about is how this all plays into the legal implications of what CIT is proposing.

Wars of Aggression: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire, Questions sur les miracles (1765)

Senator Lieberman, Secretary of State Clinton, and former UN Ambassador John Bolton have resumed rhetoric of a United States attack upon Iran. This article will define “War of Aggression” and explain when a war is justifiable under US and international law. Laws are meant to be understood and obeyed. Among the most important for governments and citizens to understand is when war is authorized, and when responses other than war are required. If we wish to call ourselves civilized, we MUST understand the rule of law before we threaten a nation for destruction, death, and cruel physical, emotional and mental agony.
It is edited from my brief, “War with Afghanistan and Iraq, rhetoric for war with Iran”; found here: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/41708.

Bush Regime Declares Itself Above the Law

Bush Regime Declares Itself Above the Law

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bush-regime-declares-itself-above-the-law.html

Paul Craig Roberts
Lew Rockwell.com
Monday, Dec 08, 2008

The US government does not have a monopoly on hypocrisy, but no other government can match the hypocrisy of the US government.

It is now well documented and known all over the world that the US government tortured detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and that the US government has had people kidnaped and “rendentioned,” that is, transported to third-world countries, such as Egypt, to be tortured.

Also documented and well known is the fact that the US Department of Justice provided written memos justifying the torture of detainees. One torture advocate who wrote the DOJ memos that gave the green light to the Bush regime’s use of torture is John Yoo, a Vietnamese immigrant who somehow secured a US Justice Department appointment and a tenured professorship at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law.

Operation Sudden Fall

A new short film about the recent DEA drug bust at San Diego State University that resulted in almost 100 arrests, including students majoring in criminal justice and Homeland Security.

A National Registry of Judges Notified of Treasonous Acts Has Been Started- Please Participate and Give Input

As of last week the following federal judges have been notified of treasonous activity related to 9-11 and its aftermath.

District of Connecticut:
Janet C. Hall (Bridgeport, CT)
Stefan R. Underhill (Bridgeport, CT)
Warren W. Eginton (Bridgeport, CT)
Alan H. Nevas (Bridgeport, CT)

Spying on US population to be limitless

Senate Votes for Warrantless Surveillance

Bush threatened Senator to prevent their vacation.

16 democrats and one independent (former democrat Lieberman) voted with the republicans.

"We're at war. The enemy wants to attack us," Lieberman said during the Senate debate. "This is not the time to strive for legislative perfection."

The Bush White House tabled its demands thus:

What Is Not Acceptable

Some have proposed that the Government must obtain pre-approval from a court before it conducts critical surveillance of targets located overseas. This is unacceptable. The Government must be able to act immediately, particularly in the case of national security emergencies, to protect the Nation.

Some have suggested that FISA must be reformed, but only to permit collection against certain overseas threats like al Qaeda terrorists. This is unacceptable. There are many threats that confront our Nation, including military, weapons proliferation, and economic, and we must be able to conduct foreign intelligence effectively on all of them.

How many of us here @ 911 Blogger are guilty right now of misprision of treason, seriously (that includes you too trolls)?!!!

I posted a blog entry yesterday about the strategic possibilities of treason trials (http://www.911blogger.com/node/10274). Part of that entry was also a reminder that knowledge of treason, such as the 9-11 variety that we all know of comes with specific legal responsibilities in this country. One again, from wikipedia: "In the United States, misprision of treason is a federal offense, committed where someone who has knowledge of the commission of any treason against the United States, does not inform the President, a federal judge or state Governor or judge (18 U.S.C. § 2382). It is punishable by a fine and up to 7 years in prison."

Caught while truthing, a note from the front lines of suburban northern CA

This morning I had a visit from my local police department. An officer and a detective from my town came and wanted to know if I was the one who had been putting up stickers all over town. Since I always tell the truth (believe it or not) and since they seemed to have an eyewitness account of my activities (it turned out to be one of their own, on his way to work, smooth move on my part, NOT, LOL), I freely admitted to being the perpetrator and agreed to not put any more stickers on public property in my town (please note the specificity of this agreement as any owners of private property will have to make a complaint before they act; however, they now know who I am and where I live, sigh).

They suggested that I express my opinion by putting more stickers on my van, even though I don't drive it much (12 mpg, I live on a steep hill) I'm considering painting 9/11 messages all over it (my daughters will disown me it I do, they don't like riding in my work van already). (You can be sure I'll post pics here if I do, btw.)

911 Truth Legal Defense Fund

911 Truth Legal Defense Fund

I am proud to announce the formation of the 911 Truth Legal Defense Fund. As many of you know there has been a new surge of attacks against members of this movement by individuals engaging in intimidation tactics, thinly veiled threats, blackmail and online smear campaigns.

As the producer of a soon to be released film on this very subject I have found myself at the focal point of much of this internal conflict, with various members of the movement contacting me from all over this nation expressing their personal fears and anxiety over the veracity of some of these attacks. It is funny to note that these attacks are succeeding in uniting a long-splintered movement, with members whom I have not spoken to in years contacting me to report incidences of intimidation tactics.

"Most Charges Are Not Related To Terrorism"

Terrorism Prosecutions Drop

"The study of data by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), an affiliate of Syracuse University in New York, also showed that as many as nine out of 10 terrorism investigations do not result in prosecutions, that most charges are not related to terrorism and that only about a third of those prosecuted end up in prison."

More proof, as if it were needed, that the "terror" threat has been vastly overstated, even when provoked, and even when most of the terrorist activity is sponsored by intelligence informants.