9-11 Justice Legal Team Forces Special Grand Jury.

(Via: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth website)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is pleased to share the following announcement made by the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry on November 26, 2018:

United States Attorney Agrees to Comply with Federal Law Requiring Submission to Special Grand Jury of Report by Lawyers’ Committee and 9/11 Victim Family Members of Yet-To-Be-Prosecuted 9/11 Related Federal Crimes

The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, a nonprofit public interest organization, announces its receipt of a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in response to the Lawyers’ Committee’s April 10, 2018 Petition and July 30, 2018 Amended Petition demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7). The U.S. Attorney, in his November 7, 2018 letter to the Lawyers’ Committee, stated: “We have received and reviewed The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc.’s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions” (emphasis added). (The U.S. Attorney’s letter is available here.)

The U.S. Attorney’s letter does not spell out the steps that will be taken to comply, but 18 U.S.C. § 3332 is clear as to what these steps must be. This law states: “[a]ny such [United States] attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the [Special] grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation.” This law also states that “(a) It shall be the duty of each such [special] grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district.”

This letter from the U.S. Attorney was signed by Michael Ferrara and Ilan Graff, Chiefs, Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit. On November 24, 2018, the Lawyers’ Committee replied, thanking the U.S. Attorney and expressing support for a thorough inquiry into the crimes reported in the Lawyers’ Committee’s petitions.

The Lawyers’ Committee’s April 10th 52-page original Petition was accompanied by 57 exhibits and presented extensive evidence that explosives were used to destroy three WTC buildings. That evidence included independent scientific laboratory analysis of WTC dust samples showing the presence of high-tech explosives and/or incendiaries; numerous first-hand reports by First Responders of explosions at the WTC on 9/11; expert analysis of seismic evidence that explosions occurred at the WTC towers on 9/11 prior to the airplane impacts and prior to the building collapses; and expert analysis by architects, engineers, and scientists concluding that the rapid onset symmetrical near-free-fall acceleration collapse of three WTC high rise buildings on 9/11 exhibited the key characteristics of controlled demolition.

The Lawyers’ Committee’s July 30th Amended Petition addresses several additional federal crimes beyond the federal bombing crime addressed in the original Petition. The Lawyers’ Committee concluded in the petitions that explosive and incendiary devices preplaced at the WTC were detonated causing the complete collapse of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 and increasing the tragic loss of life.

Attorney Mick Harrison, Litigation Director, stated: “The failure of our government to diligently investigate this disturbing evidence has contributed to the erosion of trust in our institutions. The Lawyers’ Committee felt it was our duty as public citizens to submit this evidence to the U.S. Attorney for submission to the Special Grand Jury.”

Attorney David Meiswinkle, President of the Lawyers’ Committee’s Board of Directors, stated: “We have offered to assist the U.S. Attorney in the presentation of this evidence to a Special Grand Jury. We have also requested that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth provide us expert support in the hope that our organizations will be invited to make a joint presentation of relevant evidence to the Special Grand Jury.”

Attorney William Jacoby, Lawyers’ Committee Board Member, stated: “We call upon the public and legal community to contact us and support our efforts to contribute to this grand jury process and to monitor and ensure compliance by the Justice Department.”

Executive Director and Actor Ed Asner stated: “The U.S. Attorney’s decision to comply with the Special Grand Jury Statute regarding our petitions is an important step towards greater transparency and accountability regarding the tragic events of 9/11.”

Advertisements

Moralizing International Politics.

(Originally posted at Transcend International)

Moralizing International Politics

BY TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 4 Dec 2017

Dr. Debidatta Aurobinda Mahapatra – TRANSCEND Media Service

This article makes an appeal to bridge the chasm between the practice of international politics and the universal moral principles. Violation of moral principles has emerged a norm than exception in international politics. States and global institutions have proved ineffective to checkmate violent conflicts and wanton killings as in Syria. It is not they are incapable or lack resources. The problem lies elsewhere. Ego is a major cause behind much of the hazards in international politics. The article problematizes ego and calls for a broader thinking in international politics.  

Ban Ki-moon, the former head of the United Nations, expressed the frustration of our age. He lamented: “It should shame us all…the suffering of the Syrian people continues to plumb new depths … The international community, and in particular the Security Council, cannot afford to waste any further time in ending the cycle of violence… it is time to find an exit from this madness” (The United Nations 2015). Syria provides a stark example before us how states and global institutions have proved ineffective to ensure international peace and security. Within a span of six years since the crisis erupted, more than 400,000 people lost lives and unaccountable others uprooted. The powerful states in the United Nations flexed muscles over means to realize peace. Peace remained elusive.

One of the factors that contribute to the ineffectiveness of the international community and its leaders is the technological-moral chasm. There has been rapid growth in technology, particularly the communication technology, but the thinking pattern has not witnessed parallel growth. The old primordial way of thinking has not changed. The archetypal thinking in terms of binaries – mine vs thine, us vs them, my group vs rival group – has not evolved over centuries though major changes appeared in the structure and organization of human living. This thinking has produced a paradox. In the midst of developed technology, globalization and discourses of a flat and borderless world, the states are engaged in re-bordering practices. Technology has been used to rigidify barriers – us vs them – through narrow visions of security. Both hard power and soft power are used to strengthen these binaries in thinking and practice.

Does seclusion/isolation help? Is an isolated state immune from insecurity beyond its borders? In this age of globalization, how would states ensure safety at home when there is violence outside? The global concerns such as terrorism, religious extremism and climate change transcend state borders. Isolation as a foreign policy strategy might have worked in the past, but in the contemporary world isolation implies invitation to more problems. A small happening in a small part of the globe can shape international developments. How would erecting barriers ensure security of one state while other states undergo violent crises? Does eerie calm imply peace? When minds are disturbed, security is fragile, peace is uneasy, when we have blatantly messed up with Nature, how would we ensure the survival of human race in the decades and centuries to come?

The states spend billions of dollars in building weapons, while vouching disarmament. States spent around 1686 billion US dollars on defense in 2016. Contrast this figure with another figure: from 2014 to 2016, about 795 million people in the world suffered from chronic undernourishment. Is it not a violation of human moral principle to invest billions in weapons to secure people and borders while people remain hungry?

Indian philosopher Sri Aurobindo argued, like individuals, states have egos– amplified through national habits, prejudices and idiosyncrasies (Sri Aurobindo 1962). When applied to international politics, they lead to jingoism, exploitation and wars, leading to practices like colonialism and imperialism. Colonialism and imperialism, one of the worst forms of exploitation, have ended. However, they were only manifestation of an exploitative substructure. The root, the ego, is intact, and its manifestation has acquired new shapes. The Indian philosopher argued that state ego could evolve when state leaders think in terms of larger human unity and harmony. The establishment of the United Nations, after the failure of the League of Nations, was hailed as a right step in this direction. The UN was established with a promise to ensure dignity and equality to all states. Has this happened?

If the ultimate goal of human life is peace and security, then the theories of international politics have not fared well. Grand theorizing might provide a big picture and offer plausible explanations of developments, but they largely fail to account small developments at small places with big implications. Should not theories suggest ways to address state egos and its various avatars? Explaining developments in retrospect maybe useful as it offers insights for future action, but unless there is an active agenda to realize global peace, the theories would be limiting in their usefulness. Social science theories, dealing with human beings and their behaviors, stand in contrast to physical science theories, which deal with matter, mostly insentient. The post-behavioralism trend in political science that emerged in late 1960s due to ‘deep dissatisfaction in political research and teaching’ called for ‘new strategies in science’. David Easton in his presidential address at American Political Science Association in 1969 called for “the development of new norm of behavior” as the post-behavioral trend “sees policy engagement as a social responsibility of the intellectual…” He further agued, “Someday it may also require the release of the social scientist from bondage to the unique needs and objectives of his own national political system” (Easton 1969, 1061). The trend, however, petered out quickly. Now is the time to revive this trend.

Some theories suggest that the world has become a better place to live since inter-state wars have declined. Are we living in a more secure and peaceful world? What about wars within communities and states and their international ramifications? How does one define conflict in Syria – intrastate, interstate or both, or a more dangerous face of traditional rivalries? Thousands of fault lines along regions, religions, races, ethnicities have emerged. Even the threat of interstate wars with a nuclear angle cannot be undermined. The present crisis can be compared to a can of worms, with worms – multiple conflicts at various levels – continuously crawl out, in all shapes, sizes and colors and challenge individuals and states alike.

The dilemma over pleasure, happiness and peace was well depicted in the life of the Greek philosopher Diogenes. The philosopher asked the Emperor Alexander, who offered him all comforts of life, not to block sun light and that was all what he needed from him. With a lantern in his hand, Diogenes searched for an honest man. This act may defy rational understanding, but it contains a deeper message, which can help salvage humanity from the multiple crises. Pretensions, subterfuges, and other instruments meant for tangential gains bring hazards in its trail and harm the perpetrator. Gandhi’s caution rings true: “For one man cannot do right in one department of life whilst he is occupied in doing wrong in any other department. Life is one indivisible whole” (Gandhi 1969, 571).

A report titled, “Welcome to Miami, Massachusetts” claimed that if the greenhouse gas emission continues at the current rate, “… by 2100 Boston’s average summer-high temperatures will likely be more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than they are now, ‘making it feel as steamy as North Miami Beach is today’” (Annear 2014). A large iceberg of the size of Delaware broke off from an ice shelf in Antarctica in July 2017. According to a report, “global warming has pushed temperatures up to 5 degrees higher in the region since the 1950s and could increase up to 7 degrees more by the end of the century, putting more stress on the ice” (Rice 2017). Tony de Brum, the former Marshall Islands Foreign Minister, nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his role in Paris Climate agreement, died recently at the age of 72. Brum witnessed the ‘Bravo shot,’ the thermonuclear test at Bikini Atoll when he was 9 years old. He became a champion of nuclear disarmament and environment protection. Brum, whose island home went under waters due to rising ocean, argued, “The thought of evacuation is repulsive to us…We think that the more reasonable thing to do is to seek to end this madness, this climate madness, where people think that smaller, vulnerable countries are expendable and therefore they can continue to do business as usual” (The Guardian 2017). Gandhi’s ‘Nature has for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed’ provides a powerful message. Unless the very basic thinking of states and their leaders change, it will be difficult to moralize international politics.

Plato devised a scheme of governance in which the king, the modern equivalent of president/prime minister, must be a philosopher. The king must undergo decades of education to govern the state. The king and his class must rise above the notions of mine and thine, live a communal life, eat in common kitchen, transcend boundaries of family and group, and become free to dedicate his life to state. Applying the Platonic yardstick to modern day kings, leaders of modern states, may appear farfetched, but it provides a vision how a leader should govern a state.

For moralizing international politics, one state does not have to dominate or be dominated. Morality requires collective conscience and action. The states, through their leaders, need to develop an integral moral psychology that informs social, economic and political worlds as they interact and shape each other. Powerful states may provide leadership in this direction.

References:

Annear, Steve (2014) Welcome to Miami, Massachusetts. Boston Daily, July 11, http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/07/11/climate-central-map-heat-boston-miami/, accessed 4 July 2017.

Easton, David (1969) The New Revolution in Political Science. The American Political Science Review; 63 (4):1051-1061.

Gandhi, Mahatma (1969) The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 32. New Delhi: The Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India.

Rice, Doyle (2017) Massive iceberg nearly the size of Delaware breaks off Antarctica. USA Today, 12 July, https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2017/07/12/massive-iceberg-breaks-off-antarctica/102637874/, accessed 4 July 2017.

Sri Aurobindo (1962) Human Cycle, the Ideal of Human Unity, War and Self-Determination. Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram.

The Guardian (2017) Tony de Brum, champion of Paris climate agreement, dies aged 72, 23 August,https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/23/tony-de-brum-champion-of-paris-climate-agreement-dies-aged-72, accessed 24 August 2017.

The United Nations (2015) Statement by the Secretary-General on the Third Anniversary of the Geneva Communique on Syria.  30 June, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/06/30/world/middleeast/ap-un-united-nations-syria.html, accessed 5 August 2017.

________________________________________________________

Dr Debidatta Aurobinda Mahapatra is a member of the TRANSCEND Network, Director of the Mahatma Gandhi Center for Non-Violence, Human Rights and World Peace at Hindu University of America in Florida, and a Fellow at the Center for Peace, Democracy and Development, University of Massachusetts Boston. He is an Indian commentator and his areas of interest include conflict transformation and peacebuilding in South and Central Asia. His edited book Conflict and Peace in Eurasia was published by Routledge in 2013.

 

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 4 Dec 2017.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source,TMS: Moralizing International Politics, is included. Thank you.

Former Pentagon Staffer: Absence of Engines, Tail, Wings Show No 757 Crashed at the Pentagon On 9/11

Janice Kortkamp: “An American Housewife In Syria.”

By Jerry Alatalo

“There is no such thing as an independent press in America. I am paid for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street looking for another job.”

JOHN SWINTON (1830-1901) Editor, New York Sun

or those on the spectrum ranging from an above average knowledge of the reality in Syria 2011-2017 to those with little or none, American housewife and independent journalist Ms. Janice Kortkamp has earned a great deal of respect and gratitude for energetically and courageously seeking and speaking the truth.

***

“Thank you all for coming. Thank you so much to the Syrian American forum for hosting me, and sponsoring me here today. I love talking about Syria and, so, really, I’m honored to have this time with you. We’ve got a lot of ground to cover so I’ll just go right into it. If you don’t mind, I would prefer to take questions at the end. I’ll try to leave a half-hour at the end, but if there’s something really urgent, feel free to raise your hand and we’ll try to address that.”

“I do want to say that I am here on my own. I’m not here representing the Syrian … Syrian American forum, Boston College, anything else, you know. I’m just here giving you my own opinion, what I’ve learned, and what I’ve observed over the past five years of researching the Syrian war, and Syria as a country.”

“I call these presentations ‘An American Housewife in Syria’ for a reason. It’s because I am an American; I consider myself a patriotic American. I believe it is the duty of every honest American to hold our government accountable for its words and actions, and I think we’re a critical part of the checks and balances of our constitutional republic.”

“I am a housewife; I am not paid by anyone for anything. I spent a lot of time washing dishes and cleaning the house and picking vegetables in the garden and that kind of thing. I do not represent any movement, organization. corporation, denomination, other nation … and Vladimir Putin does not pay me. Nobody pays me. My husband and I, we … he’s a handyman. He fixes houses, he pays for most of my trips to Syria, although we have received some help from friends and family, which we really appreciate.”

“I started researching Syria in 2012 – in November of 2012, as a matter of fact. It’s a map (referring to visual part of presentation) of where I’ve been; I’ll show it to you in a minute … In 2012, at the end of that year, the Arab Spring as it was called was in full swing. I had been kind of watching it on the evening news, had seen Colonel Gaddafi get tortured and killed, and at that time I thought it just seemed kind of fishy.”

“I didn’t really know anything about the Middle East much, but I knew enough about Saudi Arabia – that I felt that if a freedom and democracy movement had skipped it by that maybe there was something fishy going on, and so I decided to just dig in my heels a little bit and as an American try to learn a little bit about the Middle East and what was happening there.”

“At that time on the news we’re told President Bashar al Assad of Syria would be next, and at any moment he would get pulled out of whatever bunker he was hunkering down in, and he would be eviscerated by the people protesters and a new dawn of freedom and democracy would come to Syria. And I have to confess, up until that moment I believed that narrative … because I was ignorant.”

“And so I noticed that he had, I’d started researching and I noticed that he had given an interview on RT in the end of September of 2012, and I decided to watch it just out of curiosity to see what this brutal tyrant … how he could justify the violence towards his people. And it literally was not two or three minutes into that interview when I felt in my gut that he was telling the truth; and it shocked me, and I became kind of obsessed immediately with finding out if my gut was correct, or if he was … or if what we were hearing on the news was the accurate story.”

“And he said something in that interview, though, that really messed up my life, I think, forever. He said … he said basically anybody can become President, but I am Syrian, I was born in Syria and I’ll die in Syria. And I remember thinking what’s so special about Syria?; I knew nothing of the country, and so, well, I decided to research the war, I decided to research the country as well.”

“And the more I found out about Syria itself the more fascinated in the country itself I became. So since that time I put in five years, well over 6,000 hours of research, I have conducted hundreds of interviews on the phone and via Skype etc. with Syrians, both in Syria and outside of Syria. I’ve put in a lot of time researching, you know, government documents, media reports from all over the world, listened to every speech that President Assad has done, and the opposition has done.”

“It … You know, I’ve really tried my best to be as well-rounded a researcher as I could be, but after four years of that I decided it was necessary for me to go and see if what I thought was going on matched reality on the ground.”

***

That was the transcript of only the beginning (6) minutes of Janice Kortkamp’s extraordinary 1-hour, 25-minute Boston, Massachusetts presentation delivered in November 2017. What Ms. Kortkamp further points out until concluding her presentation, including her successfully shattering the many myths about Syria, will deeply shake the moral foundations of any decent man or woman in America.

In particular, Americans with little awareness or gross misperceptions of the truth about Syria hearing her talk about U.S. foreign policy toward that war-torn nation – from decades before 2011 until today in late 2017 – will experience very strong emotional reactions. For that matter, Ms. Janice Kortkamp’s painfully honest talk will certainly disturb any normal thinking person on Earth – and especially so for those owning a real sense of human decency.

Blessed are the peacemakers.

***

(Thank you to Janice Kortkamp Fearing at YouTube)