Last year, it was discovered that the FBI had attempted to infiltrate the legal defense team of a Guantanamo Bay prisoner. The defendant is charged, along with four others including Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks. As a result, the military trial was moved out for approximately one year to allow for an investigation into the FBI’s offense. Recently, Al-Jazeera reported that the trial has been moved out yet again because the Department of Justice team leading the investigation (of its own bureau) needs more time to complete its secret report. These delays highlight the absurdity of the case against these men and the contemptible abuse of justice that the military trial represents.
Apparently, it has been difficult for the Justice Department to explain why the FBI approached a member of defendant Ramzi bin al-Shibh’s legal team to “create a relationship with him that he was forbidden from disclosing.” That explanation became more difficult when it was learned that another member of Bin al-Shibh’s defense team had been cooperating with the FBI since late 2013.
The FBI infiltration of the Bin Al-Shibh defense team is just the tip of this anti-justice iceberg, however. In February, it was revealed that a translator assigned to help defend the accused was a CIA operative. That’s one way to ensure that the official account of 9/11, created entirely through torture testimony and secret evidence provided by the CIA ad FBI, would not be contradicted by defendant testimony. More was needed, however, as previous disclosures showed that the CIA was controlling audio feeds from the courtroom, bugging the rooms where the accused met with their lawyers, and censoring the lawyers. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of confidential defense team emails were provided to the prosecutors.
The military trial of these men was never expected to bring justice. But the absurd actions taken by the CIA and FBI have made the whole thing seem ludicrous, mocking the U.S. justice system. Why would these measures be needed and tolerated if the defendants were actually involved in 9/11? The reasons include that:
- The charges against the defendants were largely established based on torture testimony, the records of which were destroyed by the CIA. That was after the agency misled the 9/11 Commission about the existence of the records.
- Bin al-Shibh and KSM were both originally identified by the first torture victim, Abu Zubaydah. However, the government now says that Zubaydah was never associated with al Qaeda at all and therefore he could not have known what the government previously said he knew. In other words, the arrest and torture of Bin al-Shibh and KSM were initiated by way of a fictional account attributed to Zubaydah.
- 9/11 Commission leader Lee Hamilton suddenly can’t recall anything about these torture victims or his use of their testimony (441 times) in the 9/11 Commission Report.
- KSM’s behavior prior to 9/11 was reported to be very different from that of a Muslim. He enjoyed go-go dancers and drinking parties and was said to be dangerous to nothing but his own bank account. The playboy lifestyle of KSM was similar to that of alleged hijacker ringleader Mohamed Atta, who seemed to be protected by U.S. authorities and might have been an intelligence asset.
- One of the defense team lawyers resigned from the Army in protest of what was happening. He accused the U.S. government of “stacking the deck against the defense” and conducting a “show trial.”
One reasonable explanation for why the CIA and FBI have gone to such great lengths to control this trial is that the agencies are trying to cover-up their own role in 9/11. Much has been learned that suggests the CIA and FBI were involved. For example:
- There are many examples of (admitted) government-sponsored terrorism.
- It is known that the FBI manufactures terrorism.
- FBI director Louis Freeh is a 9/11 suspect.
- CIA director George Tenet facilitated the 9/11 crimes.
- U.S. intelligence agencies continue to lie about their “response” to 9/11.
Whatever the reason for the antics, the military trial of these men has become an absolute farce leading American society farther down a path of tyranny. It sets a precedent in which the CIA and FBI can be suspected of crimes against the nation and then charge others with those crimes using secret evidence. The accused can be held in seclusion for thirteen years until agents of the CIA and FBI insert themselves as defense team members, ensuring total control from start to end.
At the same time, the press never notices that such an obviously fake trial would not be needed if there were actually any legitimate evidence against the accused. All things considered, this trial is not only a travesty of justice, it makes a mockery of 9/11 and brings shame upon the American people.
Indeed the Guantanamo “trials” are another manifestation of the 9/11 hysteria. I’ll add that the failure of defense lawyers to invoke the slam-dunk evidence for the Twin Towers’ criminal controlled demolition is alarming. This alone gives credibility to the conspiracy theory that they do not seek their clients’ best interests, but are instead committed to their role in some sinister act of the ongoing 9/11 theater.
Once again, 9/11’s reality surpasses fiction.
I agree with your comment.
Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen, attorneys hired or appointed to “defend” clients charged with terroristic crimes, including assassinations, never attempt bold defenses that challenge and expose the official narrative.
Instead, at best they seem to see their role as putting the best spin possible on their client’s guilt in hopes of obtaining a less harsh sentence.
I used to hope that defendants like, say, Chelsea Manning would be represented by a latter-day William Kunstler who would aggressively challenge the legitimacy of the charges and likewise question the dubious circumstances that precipitated them.
Instead, the so-called defense attorneys seem to accept in advance that their client will be convicted, and that the court will not tolerate, much less reward, any “radical” theories of the crime or attempts to shift responsibility and blame to the true perpetrators.
Attorney Stephen Jones, who “represented” but didn’t defend Timothy McVeigh, is a good example of this kind of capitulation.
I wasn’t as politically aware back then, but I remember seeing video clips of McVeigh and Jones in and around court and being struck by the impression that Jones looked and acted like a prison chaplain accompanying a “dead man walking” on his trip to the killing room.
After McVeigh’s inevitable conviction, he had a falling out with Jones; Jones eventually openly characterized McVeigh as a coward and a terrorist. Some advocate!
I have no doubt that if you cornered one of these attorneys and presented them with this perspective, they’d tell you that you have no idea of how absurd it is to expect any attorney in this type of case to antagonize the judge and/or jury by trying to put the bogus official narrative on trial.
As I say, to me these defense attorneys are generally a kind of Judas goat whose role is to smooth the path to the killing floor/lifetime incarceration in the Amerikan gulag.
As a pretty much “know nothing” I can envision a sentence or 2 from these judges to defense council to the effect that no matter what, if any, defense is offered, their client will be found guilty, absolutely guilty, so just put on a reasonable defense that satisfies the public but results in guilty verdict. That outcome is what is expected and demanded by the public. Someone has to pay for the crime and this guy is as good as anyone else. Judicial scapegoating at its finest. Anything to get IT over with.
Obvious that these agencies have a motive to hide something . But what recourse do we or those poor souls have? The US Congress has abdicated their authority, we are no longer represented (if we ever were), Yell off your porch, write a little. “WTC7 Awareness Day” at Oregon’s State Capitol Building, 6/24/15. Richard Gage at Willamette U. at 6, Blue Print for Truth. Something –
Always enjoy reading your blog Kevin. We covered this topic a bit in our ‘Abby goes to Gitmo’ episode of Media Roots Radio see: https://soundcloud.com/media-roots/media-roots-radio-abby-visits-gitmo
keep up the good work
The FBI has been on Lady Liberty’s sh*t list for quite a while now..
Kevin Ryan… Recommended that you review the CIA Inspector General report from 2005 that was released two weeks ago… It confirms many of the findings published in the Congressional 9/11 Inquiry and the famous Richard Clarke interview.
This kind of govt spying on its accused is (1) unConstitutional, and (2) enough to get all charges against the defendant thrown out, if we still had a judicial system that was ruled by the Constitution.
I have wondered if the govt might do something to keep this trial from ever going forward, since letting the public hear what KSM himself has to say (if not drugged or otherwise under undue influence) is probably not in the govt’s best interests.
As for an Inspector General’s report: those offices now also act to support the govt’s desired outcome, not truth or justice. They are damage control offices. And, sarastro92, please give the internet address where you found the report so we can be sure we are reading the same one.
I wonder why they have a particular interest in establishing a secret relationship with Ramzi Bin al Shibh.
I have to say that in my experience of the intelligence side of government, if they are surveilling somebody in some way, it is as often as not because that person works for them in some capacity.
Ramzi’s background is interesting. He worked for the International Bank of Yemen while in school, yet after 8 years there claimed asylum in Germany. He connects Moussaoui to 9/11. He was even supposed to have died on 9/11, yet is still around to tell the tale.
Just makes me wonder.
Whoever wrote this deserves the highest commendation.