KSM Conspiracy Charges Analyzed and Debunked

bill smith said:
My only conspiacy interest is 9/11 and spinoffs like 7/7.

So which other conspiracy do you say I subscribe to or are you vocalising from your rear nether region again ?
Click to expand...

"KSM Conspiracy Charges Analyzed and Debunked" by Kevin Barrett.

We're supposed to take you seriously Bill?
 
What do you think about Vaccinations bill? How about Oklahoma City Bombing? How about JFK bill?

TAM:)
 
[godwin]

It's like The Holocaust analyzed and debunked by Heinrich Himmler

[/godwin]
 
Only in truther land is a person with no legal training qualified to interpret a legal document.

Lindgren (photo here) holds a BA in Mathematics. He is a member of the Libertarian Party and former Vice-Chair of the LP of Wisconsin. He has extensive experience dealing with the federal criminal “justice” system. He is a 9/11 researcher since 2006, when he first met Dr. Kevin Barrett. He has a bachelor’s degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He works as a Loan Officer and lives in Middleton, Wisconsin. Rolf is a defender of Galileo and James Madison.



Dr. Kevin Barrett is the author of three books including the brand-new Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters, which deconstructs the "war on terror" through Socratic questioning. A Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, he has taught languages, literature, humanities, religious studies, and folklore at colleges and universities in the U.S. and abroad. Dr. Barrett ran for Congress in 2008. His website, which links his radio shows, is TruthJihad.com.
Click to expand...

There legal analysis is flawed in every conceivable way.

the 169 acts are not charges, they are a narrative

the charges are:

CHARGE I: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. §950v(b)(28), CONSPIRACY

CHARGE II: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(2), ATTACKING CIVILIANS

CHARGE III: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(3), ATTACKING CIVILIAN
OBJECTS

CHARGE IV: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(13), INTENTIONALLY CAUSING
SERIOUS BODILY INJURY

CHARGE V: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(15), MURDER IN VIOLATION OF
THE LAW OF WAR

CHARGE VI: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(16), DESTRUCTION OF
PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR

CHARGE VII: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(23), HIJACKING OR
HAZARDING A VESSEL OR AIRCRAFT

CHARGE VIII: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(24), TERRORISM

CHARGE IX: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(25), PROVIDING MATERIAL
SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM
 
bill smith said:
Exclusive: 9-11 Grand Jury Now Hearing Evidence in NYC:

Regular New Yorkers hearing evidence against accused Sept. 11 plotters
By JONATHAN DIENST

A federal grand jury in New York is now hearing evidence and testimony in the 9-11 terror case, NBCNewYork.com has learned. The Justice Deparment is moving forward in seeking an indictment against self-proclaimed 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other terror suspects.

The panel of everyday New Yorkers was convened after Attorney General Eric Holder announced the alleged 9-11 plotters would face civilian trial in New York instead of a military tribunal. If the alleged plotters are convicted, prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty.

Justice Department spokesmen in New York and Washington declined to comment. Spokesmen for the U.S. District Court and the FBI also would not comment.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other suspects are currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mohammed had been indicted in New York back in 1996 for his alleged role in an al Qaeda plot to blow up U.S. airliners over the Pacific.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Exclusive-9-11-Grand-Jury-Meets-78818382.html New York
Click to expand...

KSM and his defendants have already been charged. SInce they are moving the trial to NYC, they have to go through the formality of obtaining new indictments.

But they are using the same evidence as is listed in the charge sheet.
 
Trojan said:
You should take a legal course or consult with an attorney before trying to interpret a legal document and publishing an article like this

:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

You should go to law school before posting here.
 
Trojan said:
Only in truther land is a person with no legal training qualified to interpret a legal document.



There legal analysis is flawed in every conceivable way.

the 169 acts are not charges, they are a narrative

the charges are:

CHARGE I: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. §950v(b)(28), CONSPIRACY

CHARGE II: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(2), ATTACKING CIVILIANS

CHARGE III: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(3), ATTACKING CIVILIAN
OBJECTS

CHARGE IV: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(13), INTENTIONALLY CAUSING
SERIOUS BODILY INJURY

CHARGE V: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(15), MURDER IN VIOLATION OF
THE LAW OF WAR

CHARGE VI: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(16), DESTRUCTION OF
PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR

CHARGE VII: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(23), HIJACKING OR
HAZARDING A VESSEL OR AIRCRAFT

CHARGE VIII: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(24), TERRORISM

CHARGE IX: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. § 950v(b)(25), PROVIDING MATERIAL
SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM
Click to expand...

It doesn't say the alleged overt acts are charges, it says the alleged overt acts are alleged overt acts. You said the alleged overt acts are charges.
 
Galileo said:
You should go to law school before posting here.
Click to expand...

Are you 12 years old? Posting here requires no formal education. However, I think he is correct in the qualifications needed to interpret (correctly) such a legal document.

TAM:)
 
Trojan said:
You should take a legal course or consult with an attorney before trying to interpret a legal document and publishing an article like this

:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...
You don't think they're trying to be factual, do you? All they're doing is putting something out to appease the "flock".

See examples, Billsmith and Galileo.
 
Rolf is a defender of Galileo and James Madison.

Wait, does he work for you, or is you he?
 
The list of 169 alleged overt acts attempts to paint a negative picture of each defendant. No mention is made of any positive attributes.
Click to expand...

Why would the prosecution put forth positive evidence, they are after a conviction - positive attributes are up to the defense to demonstrate. :jaw-dropp

Please note that the charge sheet uses the conspiratorial term “aliases”, instead of the more sensible term “nicknames”, or simply “name variants”. Most people have all sorts of forms of names they use; first name only, last name only, middle name, middle initial, hyphenated names, titles, nicknames, etc.
Click to expand...

In law, nicknames and name variations are known as aliases :boggled:

The government needs to prove these are really aliases, and not just nicknames, innocent name variants, or different people with the same or similar sounding names.
Click to expand...

No, they are not charged for having aliases, the are charged for crimes which the government must prove. :covereyes

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Show us the evidence!
Click to expand...

Since it is now a criminal trial in federal court, the evidence will be presented in court under federal rules of evidence.
 
So this will be turned over to the defense right?
 
i wonder if this tid bit will be brought up. from the link of the op:

"To our knowledge, the only direct evidence reported that any specific alleged hijacker actually participated in any alleged hijacking is an alleged recording of Atta’s voice speaking to the passengers on FL11. But the 9/11 Commission does not say the voice is Atta’s; it only states that the voice is believed to be Atta’s. We have listened to the voice attributed to Atta, and agree that the speaker's accent sounds Israeli, not Egyptian. The defense should call a linguist to testify about this."

one would think the fbi and cia would have a database of known accents to cross match the voice believed to be attas.

anyway, i did a quick control F to find something about KSM supposedly beheading daniel pearl. the journalist that was trying to find connections between the ISI and AQ. didnt find anything???
 
Trojan said:
Why would the prosecution put forth positive evidence, they are after a conviction - positive attributes are up to the defense to demonstrate. :jaw-dropp



In law, nicknames and name variations are known as aliases :boggled:



No, they are not charged for having aliases, the are charged for crimes which the government must prove. :covereyes



Since it is now a criminal trial in federal court, the evidence will be presented in court under federal rules of evidence.
Click to expand...

the article is a critique of the system, not just a defense of KSM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom