They Do NOT Want 9/11 In A Court Of Law

Jon Gold

The 9/11 Report serves as a tool for the Empire. A tool for death, a tool for torture, a tool to destroy the infrastructures of countries, a tool to militarize our police, a tool to breach our privacy, a tool to drone weddings and funerals, a tool to kill an American citizen, a tool for propaganda, a tool for fear, a tool that asks for no accountability, and is written in a way that protects those that shouldn't be, a tool for the expansion of Executive Power, a tool to create the DHS/ICE Gestapo (tell me I'm lying or exaggerating).

In 2004, Bush’s Presidential Campaign said “the Commission’s report makes the case for the policies that U.S. President Bush has been pursuing in the War on Terror and eliminates any doubt that the best defense against the threat of global terror is a strong offense.”

The thing of it is... it could be used as our tool too. Evidence for a cover-up. It's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover-up. If there could be a Grand Jury that tried to do something like that (if that's legally possible), that would be amazing.


September 18, 2001: 9/11 Grand Jury Convenes, Then Disappears

October 11, 2001: Attorney General Ashcroft Takes Over All Terrorist Prosecutions

Key 9/11 Suspect To Be Tried In New York

From the above entries and link...

It is reported that a federal grand jury has been convened in White Plains, New York, to investigate the 9/11 attacks. The grand jury, said to have begun meeting a few days earlier, will be able to issue subpoenas.

Commissioner Bernard Kerik says it won’t be the only 9/11-related grand jury: “You’re going to see things like the grand jury in White Plains. You’re going to see grand juries around the country, perhaps, looking into matters pertaining to this investigation.”

On October 22, 2001, the Wall Street Journal will report, “The federal grand jury investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is casting a wide net, seeking information from witnesses about their contacts with the 19 hijackers as well as other suspected terrorists,” and it will detail some of the witnesses appearing before the grand jury.

However, thorough searches of the Lexis-Nexus database show no further mention of this grand jury, or any other 9/11-related grand juries. In early October 2001, the Justice Department will take over all 9/11 related prosecutions.

On October 11th 2001, it is reported that Attorney General John Ashcroft and his Justice Department is assuming control of all terrorism-related prosecutions from the US Attorney’s office in New York, which has had a highly successful record of accomplishment in prosecuting cases connected to bin Laden. A former federal prosecutor says of the New York office, “For eight years, they have developed an expertise in these prosecutions and the complex facts that surround these groups. If ever there was a case where you’d want to play to your strength, this is it.”

The grand jury in the New York district that began investigating the 9/11 attacks one week after 9/11 stop by late October 2001 and there appears to be no other grand jury taking its place.

When it was announced on November 13th 2009 that the "9/11 Five" were going to be tried in a Federal Court in NYC, it didn't take long for a campaign to develop to stop that from happening.

On November 16th 2009 Michael Mukasey was the first in the barrage of people to speak out against this Federal trial from happening. "The question is not whether they're going to escape. The question is whether, not only that particular facility, but the city [at] large, will then become the focus for mischief in the form of murder by adherents of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--whether this raises the odds that it will. I would suggest to you that it raises them very high."

Mitch McConnell said the trial "puts Americans unnecessarily at risk."

Senator John Cornyn said "treating them like common criminals is unconscionable."

Rudy Giuliani said "both in substance and reality, the war on terror, in their point of view, is over. There seems to be an over-concern with the rights of terrorists and a lack of concern with the rights of the public."

Rep. Pete Hoekstra said "they [the terrorists] are going to do everything they can to disrupt it and make it a circus and allow them to use it as a platform to push their ideology."

Senator John Kyl said it was "an unnecessary risk."

Governor David Patterson said "this is not a decision that I would have made. Terrorism isn't just attack, it's anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country. Over 2,700 lives were lost. It's very painful, we're still having trouble getting over it, we still have been unable to rebuild that site. And having those terrorists tried so close to the attack is going to be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers."

Senator Lindsey Graham said it was a "perversion of justice." 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean said it would make Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a "martyr and hero" among al-Qaeda sympathizers around the world.

Here is a statement from the September Eleventh Advocates on the matter...

"We are encouraged by Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement that the trial of alleged 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and four additional detainees Walid Muhammed Salih Mubarak Bin Attash, Ramzi Bin Al Shibh, Ali Abdul-Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Al Hawsawi, would be moved to our Federal Court system in New York City.

Unfortunately, this has evoked a knee-jerk reaction that has been brought to an almost feverish pitch by the media pundits and the politicians. This response seems to be agenda driven rhetoric unsupported by facts. Fear mongering is a tactic that is often used by those in power to hide wrongdoing. Perhaps those responsible for ordering torture have something to hide. Could those people be creating this frenzy?


In fact, having accused September 11th alleged terrorists on American soil, in Federal Court, is not precedent setting. The alleged 20th hijacker, Zacharias Moussaoui, was held in a Virginia detention center and was later sentenced in Federal Court, also located in Virginia. Where was the outcry at that time? During the course of that hearing, we fortunately did not experience a terrorist incident. Admittedly, an attempted attack could occur whether we try these suspects in America or Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Does that mean we should not try them at all?

It should also be noted that the military commissions system allows for secret proceedings where tainted evidence and hearsay could be used. Thus, any resulting verdict could lack credibility. For those who fear an attack because trials are being held on American soil, isn't it just as likely that a verdict lacking credibility could provoke an attack?

Additionally, we believe the decision to try these men in our Federal Courts is less about giving detainees the same privileges as American citizens and more about America being a nation that conducts itself according to the rule of law. As a matter of practicality, in order to protect our citizens and soldiers around the world, it is best that we not devolve into barbarians seeking revenge. Retaliation then becomes an even greater risk. It is time that we actually look at the facts and stop reacting from a place of fear."


They do NOT want 9/11 in a court of law. The 9/11 Report is what we get instead. Their tool. Also, don't forget about GITMO where there can NEVER BE anything resembling justice.

This is what happens when 9/11 makes it into a court of law...


"Mr. Samit also acknowledged that he had written that David Frasca, a supervisor of the radical fundamentalist unit, had similarly blocked him from seeking a search warrant under the more common route in a criminal investigation."


"No one from Washington called Samit to say this intelligence altered the picture the agent had been painting since Aug. 18 in a running battle with (Michael) Maltbie and Maltbie's boss, David Frasca, chief of the radical fundamentalist unit at headquarters."


"The failure of Frasca and Maltbie to heed the Minneapolis bureau's concerns about Moussaoui were a major issue at Moussaoui's trial."


"The decision partially reverses her ruling Tuesday to bar all aviation security testimony after the prosecution admitted a government lawyer COACHED WITNESSES (emphasis mine)."


"In cross-examination, a defense lawyer got FBI agent Michael Anticev to admit that the FBI was aware years before Nine-Eleven that al Qaida planned to slam planes into prominent buildings."


"U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkman suspended Moussaoui's sentencing trial on Monday to assess the misconduct of government lawyer Carla Martin, who had provided seven witnesses with information from opening statements.

"I was really horrified and very outraged to hear that this type of mistake was made," Regenhard said. "This is probably one of the most important trials in the history of this country - how someone could put that at risk. She betrayed the families of the victims who certainly have been waiting nearly five long years to get some kind of scintilla of justice."


"How are we supposed to get any new information now?" said Fiona Havlish, formerly of Buck County, Pa., whose husband was killed at the World Trade Center. "I think what all of us are looking for is the truth, and the truth has not been forthcoming out of Washington. I mean I can only speak for myself, but I do not feel that the truth has come out no matter how hard we as family members have tried. And this was just one more avenue to find a particle of truth, and that is being thwarted."


"Some family members questioned how Martin could have blatantly disregarded a court order -- or not been aware of it.

Some wondered whether she was being used as a scapegoat for other government officials who did not want the aviation security evidence to be made public.

"I don't think she is alone," Dillard said in a telephone interview last night. "I just don't think she could have gotten away with that. Somebody helped her or prompted her. It just makes me wonder whether this is one more thing where no one is going to be held accountable...It's almost too clean. I wonder if there is more to the story than we know."


"Some family members saw some irony in the judge's decision because, on the surface, excluding aviation security testimony would appear to favor the defense, but the family members said it would hurt their quest to get as much information made public as possible about the circumstances of their loved ones' deaths.

"I felt the government wasn't telling us all that it knew, and I do know that feeling is shared in the Massachusetts circle of families within which I travel," said Blake Allison, of Hanover, N.H., whose wife, Anna Allison was killed on American Airlines Flight 11. "We talked about this the first day of the trial, the hope that the trial would bring some clarity to some of the circumstances leading up to 9/11."


"The judge hearing America's only trial of a 9/11 conspirator has banned six witnesses from testifying after discovering that they had been COACHED (emphasis mine)."


"MacMahon introduced an Aug. 31 letter Samit drafted "to advise the FAA of a potential threat to security of commercial aircraft" from whomever Moussaoui was conspiring with.

But Maltbie barred him from sending it to FAA headquarters, saying he would handle that Samit testified. The agent added that he did tell FAA officials in Minneapolis of his suspicions."


"Prosecutors asked a judge to rethink granting 9/11 families suing airlines access to evidence gathered for the criminal case against al Qaeda terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui."


"On May 8, Moussaoui filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, saying that he lied when he testified last year that he was involved in the plot even though he knew that was a "complete fabrication."


"U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said she can no longer trust the CIA and other government agencies on how they represent classified evidence in terror cases."


"Brinkema said she no longer feels confident relying on the government briefs, particularly since prosecutors admitted last week that similar representations made in the Moussaoui case were false."


As you can see, a lot of EXPLOSIVE information and questionable things took place during the Moussaoui sentencing phase. I'm glad I archived it all. The 9/11 Families finally managed to get JASTA passed which enables them to sue Saudi Arabia for 9/11. However, that took almost 15 years to do. Before that, this Government did anything and everything within its power to protect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Even with JASTA, the 9/11 Families are having difficulties (that's just one) during their lawsuit. Another time 9/11 made it into a court of law isn't even worth mentioning because it was a show trial designed to say Iran was responsible for 9/11.

UPDATE - 11:16PM
I forgot about
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, and some of the decisions he's made over the years.