Russ Baker(RB) Interviews Bob Graham (BG) on Sarasota Saudi's and "high level" FBI obfuscation.
BG: Yeah. And then, I had been able to read a couple of files of materials on Sarasota, and I pointed out where their public statement was not consistent with what was in their own classified files. And the FBI officer said: “Well, that was a matter of context, that there was other information which refuted the statements which were contained in the investigative officer’s report.”
So I said, “Well, can I see what that other information is?” And he said “yes” and we set a date for the week after Thanksgiving.
And when I went to the FBI office at the scheduled time, that same agent who [was at the meeting at Dulles] was there and he said: “Your meeting here has been canceled, is not going to be rescheduled, and incidentally, I know you’ve been trying to contact the agent who wrote the report, and I have told him not to talk with you.”
And that was the last time I met with a high-ranking FBI official.
October 19, 2012
This is the print preview: Back to normal view »
Battles Over Government Secrecy Dominate 9/11 Hearings
Posted: 10/17/2012 1:49 pm
The definition and use of classified information, and the public's right to hear it, is proving to be one of the most important issues arising in pre-trial hearings in this historic September 11th terrorism prosecution. With only two of the defendants actually in the courtroom on Wednesday (the others elected not to come), lawyers from the government, defense, ACLU and 14 media organizations over the last two days have argued vehemently over whether the government is properly classifying information -- particularly the memories and experiences of the defendants, who were subjected to the CIA's classified "enhanced interrogation" program. Even if it is deemed classified, argue the ACLU and news organizations, it still has to meet a strict First Amendment standard for the court to lawfully prevent the public from hearing it.
The First Amendment only allows the closing of a courtroom, argued ACLU lawyer Hina Shamsi and media lawyer David Schulz, if it will "cause grave harm to national security."
"The government fails utterly to explain how it has a legitimate interest, let alone a compelling one, in suppressing information about a CIA coercive interrogation and detention program that was illegal and has been banned by the president," the ACLU says in its brief to the court.
The issue is important, both for the public's right to know what its government did and for the legitimacy of this historic trial. As Schulz told the court yesterday: "Nothing is likely to shape the public perception of the fairness of these proceedings more significantly than the way the court handles this request for a protective order."
The current proposed order, he said, "covers things that quite clearly can't credibly constitute a threat to our national security."
The passage of time since September 11, 2001, has not diminished the distrust many of us feel surrounding the official story of how 9/11 happened and, more specifically, who financed and supported it. After eleven years, the time has come for the families of the victims, the survivors and all Americans to get the whole story behind 9/11.
Yet the story of who may have facilitated the 19 hijackers and the infrastructure that supported the attacks -- a crucial element of the narrative -- has not been told. The pieces we do have underscore how much more remains unknown.
Did the hijackers execute the plot alone, or did they have the support of forces other than the known leaders of al-Qaeda -- a network even -- that provided funds, assistance, and cover?
It is not merely a question of the need to complete the historical record. It is a matter of national security today.
TJ Gilmartin Denied Parade Honoring 9/11 First Responders
First Posted: 01/25/2012 5:04 pm Updated: 01/25/2012 5:04 pm
The city has denied a request from a disabled Ground Zero worker to organize a ticker-tape parade honoring 9/11 first responders.
51-year old TJ Gilmartin from Queens said that despite filing all the necessary paperwork and receiving support from community members, the city's lack of financial resources ultimately killed his chance at a permit.
Gilmartin went even further to say that first responders have never been properly thanked:
When everybody 10 years ago were running out of Manhattan, including probably most of the politicians, we went in and nobody has ever said thank you. I don't know what kind of game is being played, I'm sure police want the parade. It's called the 'Canyon of Heroes;' they've called us all heroes, so why can't we walk down that 'Canyon' just like the Giants are going to do.
RIBA comes under fire for hosting ‘bonkers’ 9/11 talk
24 June 2011 | By Will Hurst, David Rogers
Institute reviews policy after controversial event booked by Zaha Hadid Architects associate
The RIBA is reviewing its policy on hiring out 66 Portland Place following a storm of criticism over its hosting of a group claiming that New York’s Twin Towers were brought down through a controlled explosion.
Leading architects on both sides of the Atlantic hit out at the institute this week after American architect Richard Gage, part of the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, delivered a lecture at RIBA HQ on Monday night.
The venue was booked by fellow American and RIBA member Craig Phillip Kiner, an associate at Zaha Hadid Architects.
Circuit Revives Negligence Suit in 9/11 Substation Destruction
Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal, June 22, 2011
The insurer for Con Edison can sue the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for negligence in connection with the destruction by fire of 7 World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.
Reversing a lower court's grant of summary judgment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the Port Authority can potentially be held liable in the $314.5 million suit for the installation of diesel fuel tanks at 7 World Trade.
Aegis Insurance, Con Edison's insurer, claims the presence of the tanks accelerated and ultimately caused the destruction of the building, which housed an electrical substation that powered the World Trade Center.
David Ray Griffin's Response to UN Watch's Article: “NGO Says Richard Falk Has “Zero Credibility,” Urges UN Chief to Fire Him”
Yes, Richard Falk’s comments are “preposterous” – except for the enormous amount of evidence supporting those comments. It is unfortunate that the Secretary-General chose simply to “condemn” Falk’s comments instead of using the UN’s resources to investigate the relevant evidence. Surely such an investigation is justified by the fact that the official account of 9/11 has been rejected by more than a dozen professional organizations, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (with over 1,400 professional members), Scientists for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Military Officers for 9/11 Truth, and Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth. Given the fact that the official account of 9/11 is now rejected by virtually all professionals who are independent (of the US government) and have studied the evidence, it is this official account that is “preposterous,” not Mr. Falk’s comments.
David Ray Griffin
January 26, 2011
After one of France's most famous stand-up comedians apologized for claiming the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an "enormous lie", Monsieur Bigard, a friend of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, details the aftermath which resulted from his infamous appearance on the Europe 1 Radio Show by appearing on the Grand Journal television show.
Invited by Michel Denisot to talk about his role in Clérambard, which opened September 16th, 2008, at the Théâtre Hébertot, Jean-Marie Bigard returns once again to the subject of September 11th.