Why KSM's Innocence Matters

By opting to try 9/11 patsy-in-chief Khaled Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court, the left wing of the 9/11 cover-up team has made a huge, high-stakes gamble. They are, as Obama absurdly blurted out, betting that KSM will be found guilty by a jury. But they are also betting that the 9/11 truth movement--which knows that KSM cannot possibly have demolished the World Trade Center with nanothermite, held the president in a known location in Florida reading about goats to kids during an alleged surprise attack, and ordered a stand-down of the US Air Force--will not use the case to draw attention to its cause.

If they win their bet and the KSM trial ends in a guilty verdict, with no visible protest from the 9/11 truth movement, the history books will record that "confessed 9/11 mastermind KSM was convicted by a jury and sentenced to death." For most Americans, that will mean "case closed." The official story will stand in the history books. "Finally, we have closure."

If, on the other hand, 9/11 truth-seekers--joined by Constitution supporters, anti-torture advocates, and honest journalists who understand that KSM was tortured into demonstrably false confessions--make a hugely visible stink about this grotesque miscarriage of justice, history's verdict will not be so cut-and-dried. And if KSM is found innocent, as he clearly will be if the jury follows the law and uses logic and evidence to arrive at their decision, the 9/11 case will suddenly be wide-open again.

That's why the psy-oppers in the front lines of the 9/11 cover-up team are terrified by Obama's decision to give KSM a jury trial. They are afraid that visible protests by the 9/11 truth, anti-torture, and Constitution movements, and/or a not-guilty verdict, could deal a mortal blow to their cover-up operation. That is why the decision to try KSM has aroused so much hysterical opposition, for example:

The mayor who oversaw rescue and recovery efforts in the wake of the attacks on lower Manhattan [9/11 criminal and fireman-murderer Rudy Giuliani, who admitted he was told in advance that the Towers would come down, then lied about it] told "Fox News Sunday" the president is only granting the "wish" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad at the expense of the American people and that the conspirators should be tried in a military tribunal.

9/11 perp-in-chief Cheney's daughter is also whimpering hysterically at the prospect of a KSM trial, presumably at the thought of dear old dad's possible execution.

Those who want to see KSM convicted without visible protest, and the official 9/11 big lie sanctified for the history books, are trying to terrorize the 9/11 truth movement into shutting up.  The best-known 9/11 coverup propaganda website is, as usual, trying to scare truthers away from taking effective action, playing on fears and insecurities among those truthers who are hypersensitive about the verbal attacks they endure...but it's the coverup artists' own fear that shines through these lines:

I just hope the troofers finally put there money where their mouth is. I want to see a free KSM movement, just as powerful as the free Mumia nuts. If they really believe what they say they believe, they have no excuse not to do something. Perhaps Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin can appear as expert witnesses or something?

The traitor doth protest too much! Anybody with the faintest understanding of psychology can see that these lines are intended to PREVENT truth-seekers from supporting KSM's obvious and demonstrable innocence, by ridiculing the idea in a manner designed to play on truther insecurities and foster inaction. Anybody who thinks that this anti-truth propagandist really wants us to join Constitutionalists and anti-torture activists in a free KSM movement, and thus impede the sanctifying of the 9/11 big lie in the history books, is of questionable intentions and/or intelligence.

Interestingly, Jon Gold, who moved in on the family members shortly after 9/11, insulated them from such glaringly obvious truths as the controlled demolition of the WTC, fought long and hard against the controlled demolition evidence and other evidence proving that Muslims didn't do 9/11, and has been working overtime ever since to preserve the "evil Muslim terrorists" myth and obscure Zionist responsibility for 9/11, using such cointepro-style tactics as provoking flame wars and issuing vicious personal attacks, is now working overtime to stop the truth movement from joining the Constitutionalists and anti-torture activists in KSM's defense. Take a look at the email exchange below and draw your own conclusions.

Dave Slesinger writes to a list of 9/11 truth-seekers proposing leaflets citing evidence against the official story but saying we don't really know whether KSM is innocent or guilty. Subject header: Re: Draft proposal for presence in NYC for KSM trial
I respond:

Kevin Barrett:

Personally I think this is too weak a response to an outrage this extreme.

If someone is tortured into a demonstrably bogus confession, that person may safely be assumed to be innocent. And if the torturers then destroy the recordings of the torture sessions, the assumption should be upgraded to accepted fact.  That is essentially what Bob Baer says, only slightly between the lines:



Here's my response, which is proportionate to the outrage.

In any case, the proposed leaflet should focus on the abundant evidence that KSM is innocent. The question of who is really guilty should be secondary. In other words, the nanothermite evidence should be cited primarily to clear KSM.  Remember, there is a  real chance that a jury will find KSM not guilty. If leaflets citing evidence of his innocence were distributed in mass quantities targeting the prospective jury pool, the likelihood of acquittal would rise -- and any response by the government would trigger useful publicity.

Saying "we're not sure KSM wasn't involved" is exactly like saying "we're not sure David Slesinger wasn't involved." The main difference is that the torture, along with other evidence, clears KSM, whereas no equally strong evidence has yet surfaced that clears Dave  ; )


[Various emailers joke about "yeah, we should definitely torture Dave" and "I've had my suspicions about Dave for a long time" etc. etc.  Others support the position that we should defend KSM's innocence.]

Jon Gold:

We need a real criminal investigation into 9/11. I am not defending KSM, nor do I think people in the 9/11 Truth Movement should.


[emailer disagrees with Jon, who responds:]

We must NOT come across as "terrorist sympathizers." There are MANY in the 9/11 Truth Movement who would like us to do just that. That would be a PR DISASTER. My approach recognizes that 9/11 was a crime, and that there are MORE suspects than just the 5 being brought to NYC.

Here is the available evidence I know of against KSM.



The "debunkers" are calling for us to do it.


It is important to note that KSM allegedly confessed to the crime before he was captured.


KSM IS a "terrorist."  Project Bojinka ring a bell to anyone?  It would be absolutely foolish for us to give our opponents ammunition to call us "terrorist sympathizers."  I am not a "terrorist sympathizer."  I would hate to be painted with a "terrorist sympathizer" brush because certain people are sympathizing with terrorists.


Kevin Barrett:

That's "evidence" against KSM?!  The guy they made a human vegetable through nonstop torture, then destroyed the interrogation tapes?! Please.

And "terrorist sympathizers"?! As my book Questioning the War on Terror explains and documents, even if we consider 9/11 a "terrorist attack," you are thirty times more likely to be struck by lightning, and ten times more likely to drown in your bathtub, than to be killed by an anti-government "terrorist." So "terrorism" in the sense of al-Qaeda, the Weathermen, the Puerto Rican freedom fighters, etc. is a complete non-issue. We need to ruthlessly mock the whole idiotic "fear the terrorists" meme -- not worry about being called a "terrorist sympathizer"!  Most of the people labeled terrorists, in fact, are heroes fighting against extreme injustice and government terrorism. We SHOULD sympathize with freedom-fighters fighting war criminals in Afghanstan, Iraq, and Palestine. If you don't, Jon, what the hell kind of human being are you?

Governments and their militaries, for their part, murdered roughly 100 million people during the 20th century, most of them civilians. They're the only terrorists that matter.

So I agree that we must not come across as "terrorist sympathizers" by showing any sympathy whatsoever with the US government, the biggest terrorist organization on earth.

And from a PR standpoint, it would be great to have Dave Slesinger carrying a huge sign reading "Torture me, I'll confess too!" in front of the courthouse where KSM is being tried, with hundreds of supporters with similar signs behind him.  A large, visible movement supporting KSM's obvious innocence would help annihilate the "we're all terrorist-hating patriots here" consensus hallucination the Zionist MSM and Jon want to impose on us.


Jon Gold:

Kevin Barrett is not someone that should be taken seriously or trusted.  He obviously has an agenda which is not in the best interests of this cause.



P.S. I live in a world of reality.  I do not proclaim everything to be fake because it doesn't coincide with what I think happened on 9/11.  As I mentioned KSM allegedly confessed BEFORE being tortured.  I also pointed out that the 9/11 Commission was HEAVILY based on his tortured confessions.  An indication that the 9/11 Report isn't worth the paper it was written on.

* *  *

Okay, that's enough of Jon Gold. I'll spare you Jon's illiterate obscene grunts sent to me off-list, which I am used to by now. If I had a dollar for every four-letter-word Jon has emailed me since he started stalking me a few years ago...well, I wouldn't exactly be a rich man, considering the fall of the dollar, but I could at least buy everybody a cup of coffee!

Anyway, does Jon really believe "The 'debunkers' are calling for us" to defend KSM's innocence? Or is he working with those very "debunkers" to spread fear in the truth movement and PREVENT us from taking action? Feel free to post a comment voting either "yes he's stupid enough to believe it" or "no, he's working for the other side."

I'll let Sander Hicks, a brilliant yet cautious and meticulous researcher, have the last word.

Sander Hicks:

Jon Gold, you are wrong. Neo-Zionist ideology = ONE BIG ZERO.

Why are you trying to instill a fear in us?

Sorry, let them called me a "terrorist sympathizer." I have already been called worse. KSM deserves a legal defense. I hold that we activists of good faith need to assemble an "Amicus Brief" and file it through an attorney.

Kevin Barrett has more substance to his argument, on the basis of legal jurisprudence, common sense, morality, ethics, due process of law, standards of evidence, etc.

The USA's eagerness to violate international laws against evidence garnered under torture itself shows desperation. International legal scholars point out that the confession from torture is inadmissable: http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/2/349

It violates the UN Convention Against Torture, see Article 15

Yet, let's not place any hope in the NY Courts, we saw how quickly they dispatched 80,000 signatures from NYC CAN.

YES there IS a strange allegation that KSM "confessed" before his apprehension in Pakistan.

However, this "confession" was witnessed by only one source, the writer Yosri Fouda. His connections to the establishment media (and possible intelligence assocations) destroy Fouda's credibility. His book "Masterminds of Terror" is a lightweight flake of chaff. KSM says in an off hand way "yes we did it" at the end of a chapter. It's rather unclear: We did WHAT?

Look at Fouda on the History Commons timeline:

Financial Times states: “Analysts cited the crude editing of [Fouda’s interview] tapes and the timing of the broadcasts as reasons to be suspicious about their authenticity. Dia Rashwan, an expert on Islamist movements at the Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, said: ‘I have very serious doubts [about the authenticity of this tape]. It could have been a script written by the FBI.’” [Financial Times, 9/11/2002] ... After being so reviled by al-Qaeda supporters, Fouda is later given a cassette said to be a bin Laden speech. [MSNBC, 11/18/2002] US officials believe the voice on that cassette is “almost certainly” bin Laden, but one of the world’s leading voice-recognition institutes said it is 95 percent certain the tape is a forgery. [BBC, 11/18/2002; BBC, 11/29/2002]