April 6, 2011
The Obama administration’s decision to use a military tribunal rather than a federal criminal court to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others means the real motives behind the 9/11 attacks may remain obscure.
7 comments:
And at the same time, the public will be denied access to any revelations that would come out about our government's blunders or part in the attack. For example how fast Bush got the Bin Laden relatives out of the country. Why weren't they taken into custody? Why were some of the perps able to get flight training? Did the CIA help them out? Just another coverup in the third term of the BUsh crime family.
What about on 9/11 the rush to "exit" a full El Al plane from JFK destined for Tel Aviv that we never heard about?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooN3mW8_6dg
Oh, with our effective (and expensive) terrorist recruiting campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Philippines etc., etc. ... "they" will have ample reason "to tell their side of the story" yet again.
John Puma
Thank you, Ray, for digging deeper into the shameful decision to bury the KSM proceeding in the military bureacracy.
You've highlighted the link between the 9/11 attacks and U.S.support of Israel's expansionist policies.
You've touched on the torture of KSM and how embarrassing that is for U.S. authorities.
Equally important but unaddressed in your analysis is the identity of al Qaeda. U.S. authorities want al Qaeda to retain its power to strike fear into the hearts of the American people, a role the Soviet Union played during the long years of the cold war. That fear is what ensures continued public support for the current U.S. regime.
But for al Qaeda to retain its potency, we must not know what a mixed bag it is, how closely it has been aligned with U.S. covert operations, how fully infiltrated with U.S. operatives, and how deliberately used by U.S. authorities to foment fear and strife at strategic moments and places.
Berry Friesen
Ray McGovern makes some very good points in his article, but I can see two other points that are worthy of at least some consideration.
First, I think Obama's first concern is getting re-elected. For whatever reason he doesn't see a significant political benefit to be derived from public trials, a conclusion made much simpler to Obama by self-interested reluctance to have public trials from within the bureaucracy.
Second, and in my opinion, there hasn't been an adequate discussion of which states (or combination of states) or agencies within those states - if any - played a role in the 9/11 attacks.
Looking at the matter from my underground bunker in an undisclosed location I can point to several potential candidates who may have been involved simply by looking at 'who benefits.'
I'd count as a distinct possibility that among the reasons the bureaucracy doesn't want public trials is because there might be some very unpleasant surprises as to precisely who was involved.
Pied Cow
http://piedcow.blogspot.com/
Just how dumbed down are Americans ?
Usually the investation of ANY crime will include.
1. Possible Motives.
2. Identification of weapons used.
The US investigated neither of these.
And NOBODY asks why ?????????
Obtain your replica watches in uk and hold it compared to a soft surface the particular watch facing down. One of several telling regions of Rolex fakes will be the resale "ticks" second by second all around the dial in place of running smoothly seeing that it would over a real Rolex watch.
Post a Comment