No Justice: Statement of September 11th Advocates Regarding Guantanamo Bay Military Tribunals

May 5, 2012

source: Jon Gold    May 4, 2012

It would seem that the U.S. Government found itself in a conundrum when they allowed prisoners, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), to be tortured in secret prisons around the world.  Once tortured, any confession or testimony from KSM, or others, could not be deemed reliable.  Furthermore, the focus of the eventual proceedings would become a trial about the practice of torture, instead of being a trial about alleged terrorist crimes.  That would have been untenable for the U.S. Government, which wants to avoid any and all accountability for their own crimes of torture.

In order to bypass potential discussion of torture, the latest Chief Prosecutor for the Military Commissions, Brig. General Mark Martins, found a willing witness in Majid Khan, a fellow GITMO inmate to KSM.  Khan himself was not involved in the 9/11 plot.  He supposedly got his information from time spent behind bars at GITMO with KSM.  Kahn will be allowed to give this hearsay evidence against KSM in return for a reduced sentence.  However, Khan’s sentencing won’t take place for four years.  It seems the Prosecution is pinning their hopes and dreams on Khan’s upcoming performance.  None of this lends credibility to an already suspect system.

Additionally, with campaigning for the upcoming Presidential elections heating up, the timing of this latest attempt at justice for 9/11 is exploitive at best.

###

Patty Casazza

Monica Gabrielle

Mindy Kleinberg

Lorie Van Auken


Recently Deceased Crown Prince Sultan and his son Bandar “Bush” Epitomize Highly Questionable Saudi 9/11 Connections

October 31, 2011

by Brian Romanoff      Nor Cal Truth   October 31, 2011

News of the Saudi Crown Prince passing in the U.S. and his new successor to the post warrant a refresher on the attempts to name them in 9/11 lawsuits years ago.

ONE BIG FAMILY

Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, the Crown Prince to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, died just a weeks ago in a New York hospital due to ill health. The world’s largest oil-exporting nation has quickly found an heir to the Crown Prince, a position directly under the most powerful of the King. The new Crown Prince has been named as Nayef bin Abdul Aziz, brother of the deceased Crown Prince Sultan. Both were half-brothers to the current King of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah, and both are a part of the powerful Sudairi Seven.

The recently deceased Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz

The old Crown Prince Sultan is the father of Prince Bandar. Bandar is known to many in the world as “Bandar Bush” for his extremely close relationship with the Bush family. Bandar served as the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the U.S. from 1983 until 2005. The Royal family’s relationship with the Bush family goes back even further.

"Bandar Bush" and Condoleezza Rice join the Saudi King and Bush at Bush's Texas property.

Prince Bandar has a history of involvement in scandals, undoubtebly we only know so much. A biography of Prince Bandar was written by William Simpson and praised by many, including Nelson Mandela and Margaret Thatcher. The website for the book contains a brief description of Prince Bandar:

Prince Bandar worked with CIA Director Bill Casey to fund covert CIA operations with Saudi petrodollars. He played a key role in the Iran-Contra affair…

Digging into Iran-Contra and Prince Bandar, an article from Surrendering Islam sums it up well:

The CIA’s backing of the Mujahideen war in Afghanistan would become its largest covert operation in history, funded by an intricate series of clandestine and illegal activities, known as the Iran-Contra Affair, which involved the complicity of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudi regime…

The Saudis agreed to fund anti-communist guerrillas in Afghanistan, Angola, and elsewhere, who were supported by the Reagan administration, including the Contras of Nicaragua…

The Reagan administration used proceeds from arms sales to Iran to fund the right-wing Contras, in an effort to overturn Nicaragua’s left-wing, but democratically elected, Sandanista government. Both actions were contrary to acts of Congress…

Initially, in order to side-step Congress, the U.S. approached Prince Bandar to solicit Saudi aid in funding the Contras. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who was the grandson of Ibn Saud, was appointed Saudi ambassador to the U.S. in 1983….

After Hezbollah bombed American facilities in Beirut and kidnapped CIA station chief William Buckley, it was Casey and Bandar who agreed to assassinate Sheikh Fadlallah, the terrorist group’s leader. Control of the operation was handed to the Saudis, who turned to the services of an operative from Britain’s elite special forces. The plan backfired, however, when the car bomb took down an apartment building near Beirut, killing eighty innocent civilians. Fadlallah escaped unharmed. And, to cover their tracks, the Saudis provided Fadlallah with information identifying the operatives they had hired..

Bob Woodward asserted that Cheney and Rumsfeld informed Prince Bandar of the decision to invade Iraq before Defense Sec. Colin Powell. Woodward told CBS  60 Minutes, “Saturday, Jan. 11 [2003], with the president’s permission, Cheney and Rumsfeld call Bandar to Cheney’s West Wing office, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Myers, is there with a top-secret map of the war plan. And it says, ‘Top secret. No foreign.’ No foreign means no foreigners are supposed to see this.” Defense Sec. Colin Powell was informed of the decision on Jan. 13th, 2003.

Defense Sec. Rumsfeld and Prince Bandar Visit the Pentagon in February, 2001

It did not take long for questions to arise regarding his indirect involvment in 9/11.

Prince Bandar’s wife was embroiled in bad press due to her donated money getting extremely close to a couple of the alleged hijackers. A late 2002 article from the Guardian explains:

The possibility of a Saudi intelligence link emerged just hours after widespread reports of bank cheques indirectly linking two of the hijackers to a bank account under the name of a Saudi princess, the wife of the kingdom’s ambassador to Washington.

The Saudi embassy angrily denied the suggestion, calling it “untrue and irresponsible”. A spokesman said there was no evidence that cheques from Princess Haifa bint Faisal’s Washington account went to the hijackers Nawaq al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar.

A FBI investigation leaked over the weekend traced regular monthly bank-certified cheques worth $3,500 (£2,200) from the princess’s account to a Saudi woman called Majida Dwaikat starting in early 2000, which was when Mrs Dwaikat’s husband, Osama Basnan, befriended al-Hazmi and al-Midhar in San Diego.

Incidentally, those are the two alleged hijackers from 9/11 that former counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke seems to think the CIA was hiding in order to “recruit” them for double agent work. An article from The Daily Beast in August, 2011 provides more details:

Read the rest of this entry »


Family of Kings Scout Mark Bavis Issues Statement on 9/11 Settlement

September 23, 2011

related: Lloyd’s Insurers Drop 9/11-Related Claims Lawsuit

source: LA Times   Sep 23, 2011

The family of Mark Bavis, one of two Kings scouts killed when United Flight 175 was hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, issued a statement Wednesday on its decision to accept a settlement and agree to end its lawsuit against United and the airline’s security contractor.

Bavis, 31, was traveling to Los Angeles with fellow scout Ace Bailey to attend the Kings’ training camp when the planes were hijacked during the day’s terrorist attacks.

Mike Bavis, Mark’s twin, had been adamant about pursuing the suit and it was the last remaining 9/11 wrongful death suit. His public letter explains why the family changed course.

“After ten long years, our family has had a change in position regarding the litigation on behalf of our son and brother, Mark. Mark was a passenger aboard United Airlines Flight 175 when it crashed into the World Trade Center. This change is the result of a recent ruling by the Honorable Judge Alvin Hellerstein. With the stroke of his pen, Judge Hellerstein very cleverly changed this lawsuit.

“The lawsuit was about wrongful death, gross negligence and a complete lack of appreciation for the value of human life. He instead made it a case about a federal regulation. He ignored 100 years of aviation law and relied on an environmental case to apply federal preemption. He essentially gutted the case so that the truth about what led to the events of Sept. 11, 2001, would never be told at trial.”To the families of the 9/11 victims: We can honestly say that our family envisioned a day when you could hear all the evidence, evidence that would provide an important step in moving beyond the events of that day.  This process has taken a toll on us that only you could understand.”We fought this long for two reasons, because we valued Mark’s life in the time spent together, the shared experiences and the expectation of what life would continue to be. Secondly, the truth as to why this happened so easily should be important. Mark did not have to endure the tragedy that ended his life and neither did your loved ones.

Read the rest of this entry »


September 11th Advocates Statement on CIA and Clarke

September 20, 2011

source: Boiling Frogs Post   Sep 20, 2011

In Boiling Frogs Post’s recent interview with Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy, Sibel Edmonds questioned the timing of former Counter-Terrorism Czar, Richard Clarke’s willingness to speak out about alleged 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar, and the CIA’s knowledge of their whereabouts after the January 2000 Malaysia “terrorist summit.”  Sibel asked Ray and John, “why now?”  We would like to note that the interview with Clarke was actually recorded two years ago, in October 2009.  As such, the “why now” question should actually be posed to Ray and John.  The real questions for Clarke should be, “why then?”  Why then and not during his testimony before the 9/11 Commission, when it would have been meaningful to the Commission’s investigation?  In addition, in his October 2009 interview, Clarke revealed pertinent insight into information sharing at high levels, which would clearly counter the misleading findings of the 9/11 Commission regarding the “failures” of communications between the FBI and CIA.
It is extremely troubling to us that the former Counter-Terrorism Czar, for both the Clinton and Bush Junior Administrations, as well as chair of the Counter-Terrorism Security Group for Bush Senior (essentially working in an anti-terrorism related capacity since about 1992), took so long to speak out about why the CIA would intentionally fail to share such critically important information with the FBI.  If nothing else, he should have mentioned in his testimony before the 9/11 Commission in 2004 that information sharing was not a problem between intelligence agencies themselves or with the Executive Branch.  Clarke was clearly well aware of how he, and the FBI, received raw data from CIA sources and had to be keenly aware that the Commission was basing many of their recommendations on this misinformation.  Clarke did not bother to clear that up during his testimony or immediately afterwards.

This is just another glaring example of how the 9/11 Commission failed.  How could the Commission have been unaware of how information sharing was actually accomplished within the agencies and with the White House?  Did they fail to ask any appropriate questions to the key witnesses?  Why did they purposely choose to relegate the extremely important fact that the CIA intentionally withheld information from the FBI to a tiny footnote (Chapter 6, Footnote 44) in their final report?  Worse yet, according to the 9/11 Commission, they allegedly have never found out who in the CIA gave the order to keep the FBI out of the loop.  They had to know that this deliberate failure to share information could only be fixed by removing the individuals responsible and not be cured by a reorganization recommendation.  Despite logic, that is what they recommended.

Read the rest of this entry »


Jersey Girls Who Emerged After 9/11 Stay Activists

August 29, 2011

related: Lorie Van Auken Interviewed by Sibel Edmonds

related: 9/11 Widows Shun Spotlight As 10th Anniversary Approaches

source: 9/11 Truth News  Aug 29, 2010

The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 turned them into widows and the four Jersey Girls, as they became known, turned themselves into activists.

A decade after the attacks, at least two of them are still trying to make change in public policy. In doing so, they’ve broadened their focus from post-attack truth-finding, the cause that brought them together nearly 10 years ago.

Lorie Van Auken is now a beekeeper who is pressing the federal Environmental Protection Agency to ban a pesticide that some blame for Colony Collapse Disorder, which has been killing honeybees.

Kristen Breitweiser blogs on politics and national security. Though those are issues tied to 9/11, she doesn’t write just about the attacks.

“I think a lot of times when people suffer tragedy or go through something in their own life, they feel compelled to turn it into something better,” Breitweiser said.

Many of the spouses, parents and children of those killed in the terrorist attacks did that.

They set up foundations to honor the best traits of their lost loved ones. They lobbied for tax breaks for the victims, fair deals from the Victims’ Compensation Fund and a burial site at ground zero.

The four stay-at-home moms who lived relatively carefree lives in suburban Monmouth County became some of the most visible faces of the families of the dead and their main cause at the time: pushing the federal government to study the attacks — whether there was intelligence that could have prevented them, and whether the response once they began was adequate. They were subjects of scores of articles, multiple books — including a memoir Breitweiser published in 2006 — and a documentary film, “9/11: Press for Truth.”

The fame and the civic engagement, born of tragedy, came fast.

“I had a very complacent life: we voted, we paid taxes, we volunteered. That was it,” Breitweiser said. “That was the extent of our contribution.”

Two of the Jersey Girls, Patty Casazza and Mindy Kleinberg, did not respond to requests for interviews for this article and have not granted any interviews for the last few years.

All four had husbands working in the twin towers of the World Trade Center.

After 9/11, they united over their mounting frustration that the whole story wasn’t being told.

Read the rest of this entry »


A 9/11 Victim Is Identified by DNA in 2011

August 24, 2011

Nor Cal Truth    Aug. 24, 2011

Over 70 body parts from 9/11 victims were found in 2010.

Could it be that more remains in 2011 have been found?  The NY Medical Examiner does not make it 100% clear if these were body fragments from previous fragment recoveries in 2010 or 2006, or if perhaps more fragments have been found in 2011. Here is the latest from CBS New York:

Forensic technicians have identified another set of human remains found in the rubble of the World Trade Center, nearly a decade after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The office of New York City’s medical examiner announced Tuesday that it had successfully matched a set of remains to 40-year-old Ernest James, who had been assumed dead in the Twin Towers’ collapse.

James was identified within the last few days through DNA testing, a spokeswoman said. He worked for the professional services firm Marsh & McLennan Companies, which lost more than 350 employees and consultants that day.

Read the rest of this entry »


Lorie Van Auken Interviewed by Sibel Edmonds

August 20, 2011

source: Boiling Frogs Post   Aug. 20, 2011

Lorie Van Auken joins us and shares with us her reflections ten years on about the events of 9/11 and her loss. She discusses the still- classified 28 pages of the JICI dealing with terrorist financing, the 9/11 families’ stalled lawsuit to bankrupt the terrorists and the direct interventions by the White House to protect the Saudi regime against the justice-seeking families, and the many uninvestigated questions and facts covered up by the 9/11 commission. She questions our current many-fronted wars and the senselessness of the occupation of and our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan with Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden both dead, while our economy is crashing here at home.  Ms. Van Auken talks about the three versions of the NORAD timeline, the passage of the Patriot Act as a vehicle to erode our civil liberties, NSA’s illegal wiretapping of our domestic communications under the guise of security, and more!

MP3 Interview with Lorie Van Auken [48:26]

Lorie Van Auken, the mother of two children, lost her husband Kenneth Van Auken in the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. She is one of the “Jersey Girls” who, along with Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, and Patty Casazza, fought the Bush administration for a commission to investigate the attacks. Ms. Van Auken is also a member of the September 11 Advocates.