Historic Case to Challenge BBC’s 9/11 Coverage

Historic Case to Challenge BBC’s 9/11 Coverage

By Peter Drew 
Originally at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33984.htm

February 17, 2013 “Information Clearing House” –  On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.

Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely ‘9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip’ and ‘The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On’. Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their ‘Royal Charter and Agreement’ with the British public. This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST’s 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.

As a continuation of this process with BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke has decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV licence fee which is used to fund BBC’s operations. Tony has refused to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.

Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. Tony’s claim is that BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official version of the events of 9/11 is not possible and that BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, BBC is supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account.

Rooke has been charged with a crime for not paying his TV Licence Fee. However, he has lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in being granted an appearance in a Magistrate’s court, where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. Tony has put together a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding 9/11 researchers:

Professor Niels Harrit

Dr. Niels Harrit is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen and is one of the world’s leading experts on the scientific evidence that contradicts the official story of 9/11. Professor Harrit’s team of scientists in Copenhagen proved that there was nano-engineered thermitic residue, both ignited and unignited, throughout the dust of the three WTC towers. He led the team and published the peer-reviewed study in an official scientific journal. He is also an expert on the other aspects of scientific evidence indicating controlled demolition of the three towers.

Professor Harrit was interviewed for a major documentary with BBC in 2011 where BBC clearly attempted to harass and discredit him rather than look at the scientific evidence, which was devastating to the official story of the destruction of the Twin Towers. Professor Harrit’s team took the precautionary step of recording this interview, as well as the interaction before and after the interview, which clearly shows the harassment and highly inappropriate conduct by BBC

Tony Farrell

Tony Farrell is a former Intelligence Analyst for the South Yorkshire Police Department. He was fired in 2010 because he felt compelled by his conscience to tell the truth in his official report and state that, due to his extensive analysis of the events of 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, he considered that the greatest terrorist threat to the public did not come from Islamic extremists but from internal sources within the US and British establishment. He is now dedicating his life to helping to expose the evidence and he is challenging his dismissal through international court.

Other members of Rooke’s presentation team include:

Ian Henshall: Leading UK author on 9/11 and founder of the UK group ‘Re-investigate 9/11’

Ray Savage: Former counterterrorism officer who demonstrates the official 9/11 story is not true

Peter Drew: UK AE911Truth Action Group Facilitator

In addition to these presenters, there are detailed written testimonies of evidence and support from four other 9/11 researchers which will be deployed to bolster to Tony’s defence:

Richard Gage, AIA: Founder/CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Dwain Deets: Former NASA Director of Aerospace Projects
Erik Lawyer: Founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
Jake Jacobs: Veteran US airline pilot and member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth

The evidence about 9/11 that will be presented by the various individuals above has rarely, if ever, been seen in any court of law in the United Kingdom, so this court case represents a unique and valuable opportunity for the 9/11 Truth movement.

We encourage all AE911Truth supporters and petition signers in the UK to attend this court hearing – the more the better. An outpouring of support will strengthen the message that the 9/11 truth movement needs to be heard and that there needs to be a new and independent 9/11 investigation.

The date and location of the hearing are as follows:

February 25th at 10:00 am

Horsham Magistrates’ Court [Court 3]
The Law Courts
Hurst Road
Horsham
West Sussex
England
RH12 2ET

For further information, please contact Peter Drew, AE911Truth UK Action Group Leader, at truthfor911 [at] hotmail.co.uk

Advertisements

Newly-Released Memo by Donald Rumsfeld Proves Iraq War Started On False Pretenses

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/newly-released-memos-of-donald-rumsfeld-prove-knowing-iraq-war.html

Everyone Knew Iraq Had No WMDS … and Was Not Behind Anthrax Attacks or 9/11

Everyone knew that Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.

Indeed, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff – Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson – just said that Powell knew that there were no WMDs:

I wonder what will happen when we put 500,000 troops into Iraq and comb the country from one end to the other and find nothing

(starting at 6:43 into video).

It has been extensively documented that the White House decided to invade Iraq before 9/11:

Indeed, neoconservatives planned regime change .

George W. BushJohn McCainSarah Palin, a high-level National Security Council officerAlan Greenspan and others all say that the Iraq war was really about oil.

But war is sold just like soda or toothpaste … and so a false justification needs to be concocted.

The government tried to falsely blame the anthrax attacks on Iraq as a justification for war:

When Congress was originally asked to pass the Patriot Act in late 2001, the anthrax attacks which occurred only weeks earlier were falsely blamed on spooky Arabs as a way to scare Congress members into approving the bill. Specifically:

And:

George Bush throughout 2002 routinely featured “anthrax” as one of Saddam’s scary weapons.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush and VP Cheney all falsely linked Iraq with 9/11 … and the entire torture program was aimed at establishing such a false linkage.

A new book by NBC News and Newsweek investigative reporter Michael Isikoff adds details, including a memo written by Rumsfeld in November 2001 – a year and a quarter before the start of the Iraq war – asking how to start a war against Iraq, and suggesting as one potential “justification” for war:

  • How start?

***

US discovers Saddam connection to Sept. 11 attack or to anthrax?

https://i1.wp.com/htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/9lm0h4eg5c25604y/images/1-74bfa9d607.jpg

https://i2.wp.com/htmlimg1.scribdassets.com/9lm0h4eg5c25604y/images/2-7f74c41013.jpg

https://i2.wp.com/htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/9lm0h4eg5c25604y/images/3-226040efcf.jpg

The Bush administration launched the Iraq war under false pretenses … unfortunately, Obama is no better.

 

Wayne Madsen is “100% certain” that 9/11 investigator and author Philip Marshall and his two children were killed in a black ops hit.

After a week-long on-site investigation, former National Security Agency officer Wayne Madsen is “100% certain” that 9/11 investigator and author Philip Marshall and his two children were killed in a black ops hit..

Letter to the Editor in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch 2/14/13

Letter to the Editor in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch 2/14/13

“The Drone Age” editorial (Feb. 8) asserts that our laws need to catch up with the United States’ military tactics. Justification is based on the characterization that al-Qaida’s surprise attack changed everything. What it actually changed was only our regard for law. Based on 9/11, the U.S. asserted it can attack any country without being attacked first, our executive branch can kill anyone by assuring us he was a threat, and government agencies can watch citizens from the skin up without oversight.

However, we were lied into Iraq. It was an illegal war. It’s connection to 9/11 was a fabrication. We were also lied into Afghanistan. On 9/11 three buildings collapsed symmetrically at, or near, freefall speed into their own footprints. The tops of the twin towers fell (in near freefall) through thousands of tons of undamaged steel and concrete as though it offered no resistance to the falling debris. A third building, undamaged by planes, fell the same way. Collapsing skyscrapers symmetrically, with debris falling faster as it comes down, and keeping the debris in the building’s own footprints can only be accomplished through controlled demolition.

9/11 Truth Author Philip Marshall and his family murdered.

A 6 Feb 2013 report in the Santa Barbara Review discusses the slaying of a 9/11 author Philip Marshal and his two children Alex and Macaila in their home in the “gated community of Forest Meadows”, California, east of Sacramento. I have been through this area several times as my Brother-in-Law lived in nearby Pollock Pines.

Philip was just completing his book, “The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror.”

I wonder if the 9/11 Truth Community can help this brave man’s family — do any of us know him? We can also encourage a thorough investigation and fair reporting of the man’s death. He was an outspoken member of our world-wide truth-seeking community. The photo in the article shows two beautiful youth with their father Philip.

http://www.santabarbaraview.com/phillip-marshall-wrote-about-a-conspirac…
QUOTE:
[quote] Phillip Marshall Wrote About a Conspiracy; Was He the Victim of One?
By Editor on February 6, 2013 in News

A Santa Barbara View Exclusive Report

Former airline pilot Phillip (alternately, “Philip”) Marshall spent a great deal of time around Santa Barbara last year preparing for the release of his controversial 9/11 conspiracy book “The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror.”

During the editing and pre-marketing process of Marshall’s book, he expressed some degree of paranoia because the nonfiction work accused the George W. Bush administration of being in cahoots with the Saudi intelligence community in training the hijackers who died in the planes used in the attacks.

“Think about this,” Marshall said last year in a written statement, “The official version about some ghost (Osama bin Laden) in some cave on the other side of the world defeating our entire military establishment on U.S. soil is absolutely preposterous.”

Marshall went on to say: “The true reason the attack was successful is because of an inside military stand-down and a coordinated training operation that prepared the hijackers to fly heavy commercial airliners. We have dozens of FBI documents to prove that this flight training was conducted California, Florida and Arizona in the 18 months leading up to the attack.”

The veteran pilot confided that he was concerned about his 10-year, independent 9/11 study and most recent book since they pointed to the Saudis and the Bush intelligence community as the executioners of the attack that defeated all U.S. military defenses on Sept. 11, 2001. Marshall said he knew his book might cause some people to take issue with him.

Slaying victims Alex and Macaila Marshall with their father, Phillip Marshall.

However, could last weekend’s killings in the remote, gated community of Forest Meadows outside the tiny town of Murphys be another conspiracy? Although sheriff’s investigators don’t know the motive, they reported that the killings as a double murder and suicide. Marshall was found in his home’s doorway in a pool of blood with a 9mm Glock pistol that he had just showed to a friend two weeks ago.

The Calaveras County coroner is having a toxicology report performed on the blood of Marshall and his children to determine if any drugs are present in their blood streams, which is standard procedure in cases like this. Reports from the county sheriff indicate the children were sleeping when shot. The coroner said Macaila Marshall, 14, and Alex Marshall, 17, were lying 6 feet from each other on separate parts of a large U-shaped sectional couch.

When asked whether it was possible the children were drugged, the coroner said he couldn’t say yet. “That’s a good question,” he said in published reports. “We will be checking tox on everybody. It did appear as though they were sleeping.” The toxicology results and pathologist’s report could be completed within three weeks.

“Cause of death is all going to be single gunshot wound to the head for everybody,” the coroner said. The family dog also was found dead from a gunshot in a bedroom.

Calaveras County officials said conspiracy theories about the deaths are growing on online comment forums below stories about the incident. Many of these stem from Marshall’s involvement with the CIA as a contract pilot in the 1980s and the books he wrote about 9/11.

The children’s mother, Sean Marshall, was traveling on business in Turkey at the time of the killings. The coroner said she is expected to arrive in the area soon to make funeral arrangements.

2008 crime reports indicate friction between Marshall and his spouse. Phillip Marshall was jailed briefly on suspicion of slapping Sean Marshall’s sister, but he was not prosecuted. Last year, Marshall told one of his book editors that he still was disputing custody of his children with his ex-wife, but gladly attended his son’s football games and was quite close with daughter.

However, at that time Marshall was heavily involved with publishing what became his last book.

“After an exhaustive 10-year study of this lethal attack that used Boeing airliners filled with passengers and fellow crew members as guided missiles, I am 100 percent convinced that a covert team of Saudi intelligence agents was the source of logistical, financial and tactical resources that directed essential flight training to the 9/11 hijackers for 18 months before the attack,” Marshall wrote. “This conclusion was determined six years ago and all subsequent evidence has only served to confirm this conclusion.”

On March 1, two former U.S. senators, who headed separate 9/11 federal investigations, also raised the possibility of Saudi involvement in the attacks that killed 3,000 people and spurred the global War on Terror. In sworn statements that seem likely to reignite the debate, former senators Bob Graham and Bob Kerrey, who saw top-secret information on the Saudis’ activities, said they believe that the Saudi government played a direct role in the terrorist attacks.

“I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” former Senator Bob Graham said in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of 9/11 victims and others. Graham headed a 2002 joint congressional inquiry into the attacks and has claimed he was muzzled into silence about his committee’s findings in 2002 by former Vice President Dick Cheney and other top members of the Bush intelligence community.

In his own sworn affidavit, Kerrey said “significant questions remain unanswered” about the role of Saudi institutions. “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the (9/11) attacks has never been fully pursued,” Kerrey said in a March 1, 2012, New York Times article.

The affidavits, which were filed Feb. 24, are part of a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit going through federal courts since 2002. An appellate court, reversing an earlier decision, said in November that foreign nations were not immune to lawsuits under certain terrorism claims, clearing the way for parts of the Saudi case to be reheard in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

Last year, Marshall spoke on the national radio broadcast AM Coast to Coast. He said the entire 9/11 episode was “a political stunt to favor the American shadow government that is currently doing business as the U.S. intelligence community.”
[/quote]

Marshall on Coast to Coast am
Feb. 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm-p1dIbaH8
Sep. 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1CBO9LMaqE

Background about the author on C2C
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/marshall-philip/55965

His book
http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Bamboozle-War-Terror/dp/1468094580/ref=cm_…
http://thebigbamboozle.tumblr.com/
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/download/file.php?id=465

Other news:
http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/news/article_71f9b8da-6e27-11e2-99e8-…
http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/news/article_7a125160-6ff5-11e2-9b3b-…
http://www.uniondemocrat.com/News/Local-News/Ex-wife-gives-insight-into-…
http://www.noozhawk.com/article/020913_bill_macfadyen/

Doctors call for Dr David Kelly inquest to resume

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9861704/Doctors-call-for-Dr-David-Kelly-inquest-to-resume.html

A group of doctors which has been investigating the death of government scientist Dr David Kelly wrote to the Chief Coroner today calling for his inquest to be resumed and the suicide verdict re-examined.

A group of doctors which has been investigating the death of government scientist Dr David Kelly wrote to the Chief Coroner today calling for his inquest to be resumed and the suicide verdict re-examined.

They also said that the first police officer at the scene of Dr Kelly’s death had changed his account of how his body was positioned, bolstering claims that it had been moved.

They say that Lord Hutton merely accepted the opinion of the pathologist without proper investigation and lacking the experience, qualification or legal authority to confirm the cause of death.

”Any reasonable person would accept that the lack of adequate inquiry into the cause of death and the production of the new, uninvestigated evidence relating to the suicide conclusion provides overwhelming and exceptional reasons for this inquest to be resumed, the cause of death properly investigated, any new evidence admitted, the cause of death properly certified and the proceedings formally closed,” they wrote.

In the letter, which has been copied to the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor and the Oxfordshire Coroner, they call for the inquest to be resumed with witnesses giving evidence under oath, in front of a jury.

They said relevant members of Thames Valley police should be called to give evidence and all information made available to the Hutton Inquiry provided for consideration.

The suicide verdict should be proved beyond all doubt, they said.

The Attorney General Dominic Grieve rejected calls for an inquest in 2011 following a lengthy review of the case.

Mr Grieve found there was no possibility that an inquest would reach a different conclusion from the Hutton Inquiry, which found in 2004 that Kelly committed suicide.

Forgetting Torture: Lee Hamilton, John Brennan, and Abu Zubaydah

John O. Brennan
John O. Brennan (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
9/11 Commissioners
9/11 Commissioners (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The pervasive news surrounding the confirmation hearing of John Brennan, Obama’s nominee for CIA director, is paralleled by another, related story that has been largely ignored by the U.S. media.  That is the story of the man called Abu Zubaydah, whose alleged torture testimony, obtained by the CIA while Brennan was the head of the agency’s Terrorist Threat Center, built the foundation for the official account of 9/11.  This week I spoke to Lee Hamilton, former vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission, about the serious problems that the government’s new stance on Zubaydah creates for the 9/11 Commission Report.

English: Official Guantanamo picture of Abu Zu...
English: Official Guantanamo picture of Abu Zubaydah. Note: “Compliant (JTF-GTMO) captives wear white or tan Guantanamo captives’ uniforms. Non-compliant captives wear orange. Captives who are considered suicide risks wear black uniforms. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As stated in my last article on the subject, Zubaydah is at the center of an unraveling of the official account of the 9/11 attacks.[1]  His extensive torture at the hands of the CIA during Brennan’s tenure, which included at least 83 water-boarding sessions, hanging the man naked from the ceiling, slamming him against a concrete wall, and other atrocious experimental techniques, was said to produce valuable evidence about al Qaeda.  However, the government now claims that Zubaydah was never a member or associate of al Qaeda and therefore he could not have known any of the information that the 9/11 Commission attributed to him.

From the start of our conversation, Hamilton told me that he was having trouble remembering Zubaydah.  That was odd considering that an article he and Thomas Kean wrote for the New York Times in 2008, describing how the CIA obstructed the 9/11 investigation, referred several times to Zubaydah specifically.[2]  The article claimed that “Beginning in June 2003, we requested all reports of intelligence information on these broad topics that had been gleaned from the interrogations of 118 named individuals, including both Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, two senior Qaeda operatives.”  Kean and Hamilton further wrote that, “in October 2003, we sent another wave of questions to the C.I.A.’s general counsel. One set posed dozens of specific questions about the reports, including those about Abu Zubaydah.”

These requests from the 9/11 Commission should have resulted in the release of some revealing records.  That is, while John Brennan was leading the CIA’s Terrorist Threat Center, the agency videotaped the torture of Zubaydah and others, and proceeded to intentionally withhold that information from the 9/11 Commission.  Brennan and CIA director George Tenet were almost certainly involved in the decisions regarding that obstruction.  The two men had worked closely together for years.  As CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia, Brennan often communicated directly with Tenet, avoiding the usual chain of command.  At the time, as an apparent favor to the Saudis, CIA analysts were discouraged from questioning Saudi relationship to Arab extremists.[3]  It seems that Brennan and Tenet had a tendency to protect some terrorist suspects and cover-up the agency’s treatment of others.

In 2009, it was revealed that when Brennan was the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, in 2005, the CIA had destroyed the torture tapes, most of which featured Zubaydah.[4]  Describing the CIA’s obstruction, Hamilton wrote — “The agency did not disclose that any interrogations had ever been recorded or that it had held any further relevant information, in any form. Not satisfied with this response, we decided that we needed to question the detainees directly, including Abu Zubaydah and a few other key captives.”[5]

Therefore Hamilton remembered very clearly, in 2008, that he had asked the CIA at least twice, in a potentially contentious manner, for information specifically about Zubaydah.  Having not received that information, Hamilton asked the CIA for the opportunity to question Zubaydah directly.  The CIA not only denied these requests, it denied the Commission access to the interrogators who compelled the alleged testimony.  Despite such memorable denials, however, Hamilton cannot seem to recall anything about Zubaydah at all other than his feeling that Zubaydah did not play a significant part in the 9/11 Commission Report.  He told me “I’m a little fuzzy on this but the information that we had from him was not critical to our report.”[6]

LEE-HAMILTON-largeReasons for Hamilton’s new, unconvincing amnesia on the subject might include that the U.S. government recently backed off its claims about this “detainee,” who has been imprisoned by the U.S. for eleven years without charges.  The retractions about Zubaydah create a tension with the 9/11 Commission Report that reveals an obvious need to revise the report.

For example, in response to the habeas corpus petition filed by Zubaydah’s defense team, the government stated that it does not contend that Zubaydah had “any direct role in or advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.”[7]  The same response states that the government no longer claims that Zubaydah was ever “a member of al-Qaida or otherwise formally identified with al-Qaida.”  But footnote 35 to Chapter 5 of the 9/11 Commission Report states the exact opposite.  According to this footnote, “Abu Zubaydah, who worked closely with the al Qaeda leadership, has stated that KSM originally presented Bin Ladin with a scaled-down version of the 9/11 plan, and that Bin Ladin urged KSM to expand the operation with the comment, ‘Why do you use an axe when you can use a bulldozer?’”[8]  That’s pretty extensive and intimate knowledge for someone who was never associated with al Qaeda.

In our talk, I reminded Hamilton that Zubaydah was mentioned over 50 times in the 9/11 Commission Report, and that his alleged torture testimony, along with that of KSM and Ramsi bin Alshibh (both of whom Zubaydah identified as being involved in the attacks), produced the foundation of the official account of 9/11.  Creating the background for the official myth about al Qaeda, Hamilton’s report called Zubaydah an “Al Qaeda associate,” a “long-time ally of Bin Ladin,” a “Bin Ladin lieutenant,” and an “al Qaeda lieutenant.”[9]  Despite these important references, Hamilton told me that he just couldn’t remember Zubaydah, saying “my recollection is really quite vague with regard to him.”

To refresh his memory further, I reminded Hamilton that nine separate dates of Zubaydah’s interrogation were referenced in his report.  After these reminders, Hamilton said that he still had to “stretch his imagination to remember” him.  It seems that if Hamilton had read my article on Zubaydah, which I had sent to him over a week before he agreed to meet and eleven days before we talked, his memory would have returned easily.  Instead, Hamilton’s inability to stretch his imagination on the subject was reminiscent of the “failure of imagination” excuse used by the 9/11 Commission when it proposed an overall explanation for the events of 9/11.

Because the government no longer contends that Zubaydah was in any way associated with al Qaeda and now says that he had no knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, I asked Hamilton if he had an opinion on how Zubaydah could have known so much about al Qaeda as stated in his report.  Bluntly stating “No,” Hamilton suggested that he was not concerned with these contradictions.

Our discussion went into the recent conviction of John Kiriakou, the CIA’s Chief of Counterterrorist Operations in Pakistan after 9/11, who was originally said to be responsible for the capture and initial interrogations of Zubaydah.  Interestingly, Kiriakou’s story has evolved much like that of the official account concerning Zubaydah.  According to people who would know, with regard to Zubaydah “Kiriakou now rather off handedly admits that he basically made it all up.”[10]

Kiriakou has since been heralded as a whistleblower.  And he recently said that, for embracing torture, John Brennan is a terrible choice to lead the CIA.  Kiriakou claimed that he has known Brennan since 1990 and has worked for him twice.  While in the CIA, Kiriakou noted, Brennan “would have had to have been intimately involved in—not necessarily in carrying out the torture techniques, but in the policy, the torture policy.”[11]  It is true that this would seem to make Brennan an especially poor choice but today it is clear that those who engaged in torture, and those who used alleged torture testimony to create false reports, will not be held accountable.

This week I also spoke to Brent Mickum, Zubaydah’s attorney.  Unlike Hamilton, Mickum was very straightforward and convincing.  The information he possesses suggests that Zubaydah was a victim of false claims from the beginning.  Mickum believes there may be alternative reasons why his client, who does not support the murder of innocents or suicide attacks and who repeatedly refused to join al Qaeda, was chosen to become the first, experimental, torture victim.  Mickum expects Zubaydah to be charged sometime this year but cannot say what the charges will be.  The evidence no longer supports claims that Zubaydah conspired with al Qaeda in any way.  Additionally, he cannot be charged as an enemy combatant through the 2006 Military Commissions Act considering that he was captured and tortured years before that law was enacted.

With this in mind, I asked Lee Hamilton if Abu Zubaydah should be allowed to tell his own story now that his illegal detention and torture have proven to be based on falsehoods.  Hamilton said that he would not take a stand on the subject one way or another.  This refusal is yet another reason to suspect that Lee Hamilton will never come clean on the 9/11 Commission’s use of unreliable torture testimony.

Although Hamilton has repeatedly stated publicly that he believes torture is immoral and that the U.S. must take a strong stance against it, his actions and his work speak otherwise.  The glaring problem he faces now is that it is the 9/11 Commission Report that stands as the definitive argument supporting use of torture.  After all, if not for the alleged torture testimony of Abu Zubaydah and the people he reportedly identified (KSM and Ramsi bin Alshibh in particular) Hamilton’s report would have little evidentiary basis.  And as the U.S. government strains to come up with charges to apply to Zubaydah after disclaiming his connections to al Qaeda, the Commission’s report remains at risk of being further challenged by whatever charges are ultimately filed.


[1] Kevin R. Ryan, Abu Zubaydah Poses a Real Threat to Al Qaeda, Dig Within, October 15, 2012,http://digwithin.net/2012/10/15/zubaydah/

[2] Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, Stonewalled by the C.I.A., The New York Times, January 2, 2008,http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?_r=0

[3] James Risen, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, Free Press, 2006

[4] Mark Mazetti, .U.S. Says C.I.A. Destroyed 92 Tapes of Interrogations, The New York Times, March 2, 2009,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/washington/03web-intel.html?_r=0

[5] Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, Stonewalled by the C.I.A

[6] Notes from my talk with Lee Hamilton, February 7, 2013

[7] Zayn al Abidin Muhammad Husayn v. Robert Gates, Respondents Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Discover and Petitioner’s Motion for Sanctions. Civil Action No. 08-cv-1360 (RWR), September 2009

[8] See the footnote 35 to Chapter 5 of the 9/11 Commission Report, which sources the information from “Intelligence report, interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, May 16, 2003,” http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Notes.htm

[9] National Commission on Terrorist  Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

[10] Jeff Stein, Foreign Policy, CIA Man Retracts Claim on Waterboarding, January 6, 2010

[11] Democracy Now, Whistleblower John Kiriakou: For Embracing Torture, John Brennan a “Terrible Choice to Lead the CIA”, January 30, 2013, http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/30/whistleblower_john_kiriakou_for_embracing_torture