True 9/11 Conspirators Reveal Themselves
by C. L. Cook
 The New York Times printed yesterday a definitive conclusion of the untried mystery behind the crime of the century. Since 2001, they've all said it had to happen: "Sooner or later, someone on the inside would come forward." A conspiracy as large as 9/11 couldn't stay buried forever.
Times reporter, William Glaberson grabbed the by-line for the announcement of the possible release of a document purportedly authored by five prisoners of the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba prison complex. Glaberson says the five prisoners are described in a document not yet released to the public as the shadowy sounding , '9/11 Shura Council.'
More precisely, the Times quotes;
"The document, which may be released publicly on Tuesday, uses the Arabic term for a consultative assembly in describing the five men as the “9/11 Shura Council,” and it says their actions were an offering to God, according to excerpts of the document that were read to a reporter by a government official who was not authorized to discuss it publicly."
Glaberson earnestly records the details of self-confessed mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's masterplot, noting the five have "long" made similar statements. He writes;
"Several of the men have earlier said in military commission proceedings at Guantánamo that they planned the 2001 attacks and that they sought martyrdom. The strategic goal of the five men in making the new filing, which reached the military court on March 5, was not clear."
 Equally unclear in Glaberson's piece is why the prestigous NYT fails to question the validity of a "confession" taken under the pain and duress of American captivity, an ordeal some of which we've seen in stomach-turning detail from across the new global landscape, or treat uncritically "documents" provided as proof of guilt to its reporter by their tormentors.
Perhaps it was just a slow news day at the Times? Since Barack Obama halted the military commission trying Mohammed and his four co-defendants, (all guilty and proud of it to read Glaberson's account) there's been little to write about. So Glaberson blabbers on, filling the page with untried confessions taken by prisoners still under duress, all imprisoned for years under appalling circumstance, and repeating grandiose statements allegedly made through the bars of Gitmo.
No news can be good news; and as such, William's report isn't without value. Colonel Stephen R. Henley of, "the Army" Glaberson cites saying, the men sought no specific legal action in filing the document reiterating their previous confessions, adding;
"All five of the men have said they want to represent themselves, but in the case of these two men, Ramzi bin al-Shibh and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, the military judge had not yet determined their competency when the proceedings were halted."
Were the Times to follow the venerable "military judge" in determining the same of their reporters, William Glaberson could only hope, eight years passed for the yet untried at Gitmo, his bosses take the same leisurely pace to judgement.
|
