It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New York trial for alleged 9/11 mastermind

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 07:38 AM

Originally posted by December_Rain

Mr Peper, I may contact but that has nothing to do with this thread. That's my personal business which certainly I would not share with you.

In has EVERYTHING to do with this thread. According to you and the many other truthers in this forum, Khalid Shaihk Muhammad is either a patsy or not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. This trial as of now, will not be held in a military tribunal. Therefor, there is an opportunity to assist in freeing this man.

My question is relevant, as you all spout about the government killing 3K innocent people. If you sit around and do nothing, are you not just allowing the government to destroy more innocent lives?

Yes December Rain, you don't have to share anything with this thread or forum. I will tell you though, I highly doubt a single one of you will be stepping up to the plate for this wrongly accused, tortured individual.

As far as if you do know and believe there was an interview with al jazeera how about show us where is it so we can read though the interview itself?

I gave you the persons name that did the interview and what forum it was conducted on. I also told you that KSM denied the interview took place. I'm not sure why you haven't searched for it yourself.


Here is a released document by the CIA. IT involves KSM. Most of it is quite outdated and much not accurate.

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by ImAPepper

You dont even know my point of view and your claiming im a truther, sorry but you are ignorant.

And again it has nothing to do with the thread wether I will give evidence in court or not as the thread is titled "New York trial for alleged 9/11 mastermind" and in OP's words "This should be interesting, will it be possible to view the trial in the US on TV? "

it does not state to post here regarding the subject only if one is to present evidence in court or anything remotely suggesting presenting evidence to any court or to anyone.

Secondly, you provided me a link to a news article reporting a different news article of different newswebsite but no direct link to the said source. Thus either you dont have the link to source you are claiming he confessed or you just beleived this article which provides no direct source to interview of Khaled Sheikh Mohammad with Yosri Fouda of al jazeera and surprisingly I could find no articles on Al-Jazeera either. Wouldn't the news agency themselve put such an astounding interview on the video and website?

I only came upon 1 interview which TBS Journal directly took of Yosri Fouda but there was no mention of any interview with Sheikh Mohammad. Here is the link for the "direct" interview for the parties:

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 02:29 PM
I came upon a different article while searching for the alleged interview between Yosri Fouda and KSM(which I have not been able to find yet).

After September 11, 2002: KSM’s Children Said to Be Tortured

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s (KSM’s) children, who are captured in a September 2002 raid on a house he used (see September 11, 2002), are allegedly tortured following their capture. A statement that they are tortured is made in a submission to a Guantanamo Bay hearing to determine the status of a detainee called Majid Khan. The submission is made by Khan’s father, based on information from another of his sons. It reads: “The Pakistani guards told my son that the boys were kept in a separate area upstairs and were denied food and water by other guards. They were also mentally tortured by having ants or other creatures put on their legs to scare them and get them to say where their father was hiding.” US department of Defense, 4/15/2007 pdf file Human Rights Watch, based on eyewitness accounts, says that they are held in an adult detention center (see June 7, 2007), and KSM also says that his children are abused in US custody (see March 10-April 15, 2007). US Department of Defense, 3/10/2007 pdf file; Reuters, 6/7/2007 According to author Ron Suskind, after KSM is captured and there is difficulty getting some information from him (see March 1, 2003 and June 16, 2004), CIA headquarters authorizes his interrogators to “do whatever’s necessary.” KSM is then told that his two children will be hurt, unless he co-operates more. However, according to a CIA manager with knowledge of the incident, “He basically said, so, fine, they’ll join Allah in a better place.” [Suskind, 2006, pp. 230]

Entity Tags: Majid Khan, Central Intelligence Agency, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

Category Tags: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Intimidation/Threats
Bookmark and Share,_rendition,_and_other_abuses_against_captives_in_iraq,_afghanistan,_and_elsewhere&sta rtpos=300#a091102binalshibh

So not only did they torture KSM they even tortured his children while extracting confession. Pretty serious claims.

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:36 PM
Another thing I was discussing in another thread it just came to put it here; The status of Detainee:. Here is what I put in different thread.

For one I do not know wether it's ok or not to bring KSM to NY for trial. It makes sense as he is not termed as Prisoner of War*POW*..if he was it would come under Geneva Convention and that could possible open up all sort of war crimes and prisoner abuse, torture door to Bush.

KSM is not detained under status of Prisoner of War but Enemy Combatant, thus he is eligible for trial in civil court.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8, 2002 – It is because the United States places such emphasis on the Geneva Convention that American officials do not consider Al Qaeda covered by the agreement nor are they willing to award the Taliban detainees POW status.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a Pentagon press briefing today discussed presidential decisions that White House spokesman Ari Fleischer announced Feb. 7.

President Bush, Fleischer said, had decided that the Geneva Convention of 1949 applies to the conflict with the Taliban in Afghanistan, but not to the conflict with Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan or anywhere else. He also determined that Taliban detainees do not meet the convention's criteria for prisoner of war status.

White House lawyers thought long and hard about the situation before making recommendations to Bush, Rumsfeld said. The lawyers were worried about the precedent their decision could set about detainees in future conflicts, he added.

"Prudence dictated that the U.S. government take care in determining the status of Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees," he said. "When the Geneva Convention was signed in 1949, it was crafted by sovereign states to deal with conflicts between sovereign states." The current war on terrorism is not a conflict envisioned by the framers of the Geneva Convention, he said.

Bush and Rumsfield emphasised these prisoners should not come under POW status so they use the loophole in Geneva Convention.

While keeping in mind only POW's are tried in millitary tribunal and not enemy combatants, the previous administration twisted the rules as suited to them? These prisoners should have been tried in a Civil Court from the beginning under the status of "Enemy Combatant". Millitary Tribunal is designed to put on trial P.O.W and not enemy combatants, isn't it so?

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 03:57 PM
"You dont even know my point of view and your claiming im a truther, sorry but you are ignorant."

What's the matter with you? Don't you know that everyone who does not agree with the Official StoryBoarders are lumped together as Whackjob Truthers? You see, when you have a limited mental capacity, it is a lot easier to lump everyone together into a single stereotype and view them all as being the same, instead of dealing with them on an individual basis. A small mind can only view other individuals as being black or white - it cannot even begin to comprehend that gray areas exist within individuals.

posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:06 PM

Originally posted by ImAPepper
It's the same old same old

You guys are parroting the same old tired conspiracy theories. I will ask again; who, out of all of you will be assisting KSM and his attorney? You all claim to have this evidence of an inside job! Set this poor 184 times waterboard victim back to his freedom.

Nobody will, Pepper, because they would prefer to stay where they are selling tee shirts and hats and cute little spaghetti string nighties with "Pilots for 9/11 truth" emblazoned across the front.

What will be really interesting will be to see if the boys over at PfT will be submitting an affidavit in support of KSM the way they did with the April Gallop "lawsuit" (in quotes because something that silly should not be called a lawsuit). If they are to try and stay consistent in their claims, they need to submit that affidavit that claims the Boeing aircraft would have torn apart at those god-awful speeds.

That'll be cool to see....Cap't Bob and his boys filing a legal brief in support of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Of course their story will probably be to claim that KSM was in bed with the Bush administration, hence he is just as guilty.

This oughta be good.

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:23 AM
Surely if individuals (or groups) within the Truth movement have sound evidence that could clear this man then they not only have a moral duty to present it but are also making a gross tactical error if they fail to do so. After all, this trial is a great opportunity to get their case into the mainstream media.

Incidentally it's amusing to see that when some sort of action is actually called for, over and above knocking out a few t-shirts and DVDs, the movement is suddenly not so stolid. These vaunted organisations, packed with pilots and decorated professionals, so prestigious and influential when used to support an argument on the internet, seem to dissolve into something rather less resolute when called upon to do something.

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:53 AM
If we are dealing with a brainwashed men here(In any way)who have hate for a certain ideology, Why would it be of any surprise for them to accept money from ANYONE who wants to carry out an attack on the US. Your enemy is my enemy ?

(I don't believe The WHOLE government is responsible for 9/11, but I do believe specific key aspects of the Government helped pat this dumb ass's on the ass all the way through, and even may have let this happen on purpose)
A government conspiracy doesn't have to involve as many people as you guys think.. It doesn't take 1500 hundred people to carry out something fishy, it only takes but a few men reporting to there higher ups to be told, "Hush and act like it never happened"

Or, in the case of the 20th hijacker, "Send him out of the country and act like it never happened."

PS: I didn't think any of this 9/11 bull# was possible either until I watched the original c-span recordings of the 9/11 commission, If you want to tell me those were done 100% totally fair, you haven't seen em, or are in denial to the worst degree.

I'm not a "truther" nor a "Debunker". I just want answers, that NONE of you have been able to give me, and are answers that are ultimately needed by investigation. The time I've spent on this board, I've questioned both parties and ultimately, think there is a great deal of people on both sides that are completely full of it.

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 12:11 PM
The feds are opening a giant can of worms by holding these trials in a civilian court. The potential repercussions of this are endless. From setting legal precedent to possible attacks on NYC, these trials will end up costing NYC a fortune in many ways and will take a toll on the mental well being and potential safety of NYC's citizens.

Big Mistake!!

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 12:18 PM
Amazing. The court of a nation which stabbed itself in the leg to claim self-defense for killing the brown guy that lives down the street puts the brown guy's cousin on trial for the stabbing.

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:28 PM
reply to post by 30_seconds

After they were told.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 12:04 AM

Originally posted by AgentX09
The first thing his lawyers will do will be request change of venue.An impartial jury in N.Y.?Good Luck.

I doubt that will happen. The 9/11 attacks are far too public to find a group of people who have not heard about them from the media. In reality, most change of venue requests are rejected. I doubt this will be an exception. The second circuit covers multiple states - they could choose people from elsewhere in the circuit.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:45 PM

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Surely if individuals (or groups) within the Truth movement have sound evidence that could clear this man then they not only have a moral duty to present it but are also making a gross tactical error if they fail to do so. After all, this trial is a great opportunity to get their case into the mainstream media.

To say the constitutional rights against self-incrimination or police abuse of power don't apply to the guilty is the same as saying they don't apply to the innocent.

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in