-Caveat Lector-
Begin [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: June 18, 2007 7:10:24 AM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fwd: Osama Bin Laden "Confession Video" A Fraud
Bin Laden's "confession video" has reached every civilized corner
of the earth in which a press can be found. Hundreds of millions
of people saw, heard, or read about the video. On December 13,
2001 the video was publicly released, and considering the sheer
volume of exposure, there should have been no questions, no room
for doubt. Yet, to this day, every iota of documentation related
to the discovery of the video and the process by which it was
authenticated as genuine is secret. The U.S. government claims
that all information relating to the acquisition of the videotape
is a matter of national security. What could possibly justify the
secrecy surrounding the videotape?
See what's free at AOL.com.
From: "Jim S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: June 17, 2007 4:49:10 PM PDT
Subject: C.I.A. Letter Supports Assertion That O.B.L. "Confession
Video" Was A Sting Operation
http://www.ichblog.eu/text/content/view/1709/1/ *C.I.A. Letter
Supports Assertion That O.B.L. "Confession Video" Was A Sting
Operation*
By Ed Haas
06/16/07
How many times has the now infamous Osama bin Laden "confession
video" played in the corporate media after its release on December
13, 2001? How many newspapers carried the story of Osama bin Laden,
confessing to his prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, in their
December 14, 2001 editions? How about worldwide? Combined, how
many television stations, radio broadcasts, and newspapers do you
think ran segments and stories about the content of this video?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ "OPED NEWS" --
Considering the number of television and radio news media outlets
globally, coupled with the fact that many of the television news
stations in the United States played portions of this video every
15 minutes for weeks after its release, and it can be safely
estimated that this "confession video" has played millions of times
since its release nearly six years ago. It can also be accepted as
fact that the story of the "confession tape" was deemed fit for
print repeatedly in every newspaper and news magazine in the United
States and nearly every other similar type of publication worldwide.
Without a doubt, exposure to the "confession video" has reached
every civilized corner of the earth in which a press can be found.
Millions of times hundreds of millions of people saw, heard, or
read about the video. On December 13, 2001 the video was not a
secret anymore. With its sheer volume of exposure, there should be
no secrets about it. Yet, to this day, documentation related to
the discovery of the video and its authenticity is being guarded by
elements of the U.S. government under the veil of in the interest
of national defense or foreign policy. The U.S. government claims
that the documentation surrounding the videotape is a matter of
national security -- and therefore secret. What could possibly be
the secret surrounding the videotape?
Almost unanimously, the western corporate media has accepted the
"confession video" as the Department of Defense described it in its
December 13, 2001 press release -- that the videotape of Osama bin
Laden was obtained by U.S. forces in Jalalabad, Afghanistan in late
November 2001 -- without question.
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id285.html
How is it that virtually nobody within the corporate media became
curious about exactly how the video was obtained by U.S. forces?
Which U.S. forces? What unit? The U.S. government claimed that
the "confession video" was found in a destroyed building once used
by al-Qaeda fighters. How? I'm trying to imagine the scene. U.S.
forces are searching abandoned buildings in Jalalabad and
surrounding areas. They’re trying to smoke out al-Qaeda. Fire
teams are entering each building, many in ruins, trying to locate
al-Qaeda fighters. There, inside a bombed out building complete
with the accustomed war torn debris is a videotape…It captures the
attention of a soldier? He picks it up…and then what?
What was the name of the soldier[s]? We know the names of the
soldiers that found Saddam Hussein hiding in a spider hole. Why
not tell us the name of the soldier that discovered this most
important videotape? What made him pick up the video? What made
the videotape stand out? Where was it among the rubble? Was it on
a shelf, on a table, or in a box? Who did he give the video to
after he retrieved it? Where did the video go next? And who
watched the video for the first time and why? What prompted
somebody to even bother to watch it? How did it arrive in the
United States? From beginning to end, what was the chain of
custody of the video from the time it was physically discovered
until it swept the world on December 13, 2001? And why would this
information be secret if there is not an attempt by government[s]
to deceive the public worldwide about something related to the
"confession video" -- a video that has played such a critical role
in the Bush Administration to first justify its invasion of
Afghanistan and then follow an unlikely continuum into Iraq?
It is important to remember that the FBI does not consider the
"confession video" as hard evidence against Osama bin Laden because
the F.B.I. says that it has "no
http://muckrakerreport.com/id267.html hard evidence connecting
Osama bin Laden to 9/11." This is not hearsay. The F.B.I.
actually provided the quotes to the Muckraker Report -- quotes that
were independently validated by Claire Brown formerly with I.N.N.
World Report. How could this video not be considered hard
evidence? The only plausible explanation is that there is
something damning about the video that the F.B.I. seeks to keep
from the public record. Yet it played millions of times to a
worldwide audience as if it wasn’t corrupted.
The truth is this video is a ticking time bomb just waiting to go
off! People that seek the truth and government accountability
should set aside what they think they know about it and investigate
it with a clear and open mind.
To the F.B.I., Department of Defense, CENTCOM, and C.I.A., the
Muckraker Report has requested the following documentation via
Freedom of Information Act requests.
-- Documents related to the discovery of the December 13, 2001
Osama bin Laden video
-- Documents that demonstrate chain of custody of the December 13,
2001 Osama bin Laden video from the time it was discovered in
Afghanistan until it was released for media consumption
-- Documents that reflect the purchase order and contract made by
the U.S. government with George Michael, Diplomatic Language
Services, and Dr. Kassem M. Wahba, Arabic language program
coordinator, School of Advanced International Studies, John Hopkins
University -- Michael and Wahba are reported in D.o.D. Press
Release 630-01 to have been responsible for the translation of the
December 13, 2001 Osama bin Laden video.
-- Documents that demonstrate the authenticity process that the
U.S. government undertook to authenticate the December 13, 2001
Osama bin Laden video
-- Documents that demonstrate the outcome of the U.S. government’s
authenticity process. What the Muckraker Report is seeking is a
copy of an original U.S. government document that reflects the U.S.
government declaring the December 13, 2001 Osama bin Laden video as
authentic, not authentic, or suspect of authenticity
For over 18 months the Muckraker Report has been attempting to
secure any of this type of documentation from the government
relevant to the discovery and authenticity of this video.
http://www.teamliberty.net/id286.html The F.B.I. claims that
*the material I requested is located in an investigative file which
is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Title 5, United States Code,
Section 552, subsection (b)(7)(A). Title 5, United States Code,
Section 552, subsection (b)(7)(A) states: Records or information
compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that
the production of such law enforcement records or information (A)
could be reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement
proceedings.*
To this day, I am still trying to decode exactly what Title 5,
United States Code, Section 552, subsection (b)(7)(A) has to do
with the O.B.L. videotape released on December 13, 2001.
I contested this F.B.I. decision and won my appeal. The F.B.I.
then sent a letter saying that it could find no records responsive
to my request.
The Department of Defense responded to my F.O.I.A. request by
stating that it too could find no records responsive to my
request. The D.o.D. suggested that I contact CENTCOM. My F.O.I.A.
with CENTCOM remains outstanding with no response yet received.
Many 9/11 truth seekers have long ago concluded that the issue
surrounding the "confession video" is that it is a fake video --
that the Osama bin Laden in the video is not Osama bin Laden at
all. As I have previously admitted in earlier articles, I once
held the fat bin Laden belief. However, thanks to the fine work of
Muckraker
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id406.html Report contributing
writer Maher Osseiran, and my further investigation into the
videotape, I am now convinced that the video is indeed authentic.
See Article -- "Taking the fat out of the fat bin Laden confession
video"
http://muckrakerreport.com/id372.html
However, the translation of the "confession video" that the U.S.
government provided the corporate media is significantly flawed,
and the dates and circumstances related to the discovery of the
video cannot possibly be accurate. Furthermore, the D.o.D. claimed
in its December 13, 2001 press release that the "video was filmed
by unknown persons." While the DoD may not have known who filmed
the video at the time it issued its press release, I am now certain
that the C.I.A. did. The corporate media does not consider this
type of information newsworthy. Why?
In a letter from the C.I.A. to the Muckraker Report, the C.I.A.
responded to the aforementioned F.O.I.A. request questions as follows:
*In accordance with section 3.6(a) of Executive Order 12958, as
amended, the C.I.A. can neither confirm nor deny the existence or
nonexistence of records responsive to your request. The fact of
the existence or nonexistence of requested records is properly
classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that
is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the C.I.A. Act of
1949, as amended. Therefore, the Agency has denied your request
pursuant to F.O.I.A. exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3).*
(B)(1) applies to material which is properly classified pursuant to
an Executive order in the interest of national defense or foreign
policy.
(B)(3) applies to information pertaining to the C.I.A. Director’s
statutory obligations to protect from disclosure intelligence
sources and methods, as well as the organization, functions, names,
official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the
Agency, in accordance with the National Security Act of 1947 and/or
the CIA Act of 1949.
By referencing (b)(1) and (b)(3) as its exemption, the C.I.A. has
admitted to a level of previously undisclosed involvement in and
with the "confession video" while maintaining its all to familiar
plausible deniability.
Earlier I mentioned that almost unanimously, the western corporate
media has accepted the "confession video" as the Department of
Defense described it in its December 13, 2001 press release –
without question -- except for one!
On December 16, 2001 -- three days after its release -- Ed Vulliamy
and Jason Burke of London newspaper The Observer reported that the
bin Laden videotape was the result of a C.I.A. sting operation.
Vulliamy and Burke reported:
This weekend, as the debate the tape has provoked continued across
the Islamic world, several intelligence sources have suggested to
The Observer that the tape, although absolutely genuine, is the
result of a sophisticated sting operation run by the C.I.A. through
a second intelligence service, possibly Saudi or Pakistani.
Consider this. If U.S. forces, as the Department of Defense
claims, discovered the videotape, why wouldn’t the C.I.A. simply
respond to my F.O.I.A. request by stating that it found no records
responsive to my request? If the videotape was randomly
discovered, why would the C.I.A;. be involved?
The Department of Defense is most likely being forthcoming in its
response to my F.O.I.A. request. The documents I seek related to
the physical discovery of the video and its chain of command, if
the video was not the result of a C.I.A. sting operation, would
indeed be located at CENTCOM.
The F.B.I. most likely now has full knowledge of the C.I.A. sting
as indicated by its claim that it is exempt from releasing the
documents because they were secured for law enforcement purposes.
What law enforcement purposes? The video played millions of
times. There should be no law enforcement purposes remaining
whatsoever. Once introduced into the public domain by the U.S.
government there should be nothing but full disclosure.
Clearly, the F.B.I. is concealing what it knows about the C.I.A.
and the sting operation that unfolded most likely on September 26,
2001. The mistake the F.B.I. made was to not simply respond to my
F.O.I.A. request initially by stating that it could locate no
records responsive to my request. By providing the first
exemption, and then after appeal, claim it can find no records
responsive to my request, is highly suspicious. It is my belief
that the first response reveals that the F.B.I. knows something
about the videotape that should not exist if what the U.S.
government has told the public about the discovery of the video was
true.
Many in the controlled and censored corporate news media continue
to reference this video as proof and evidence against Osama bin
Laden. What they have failed to investigate or admit is that it is
also an indictment of treason against the Bush Administration and
other elements of the federal government because the videotape was
filmed prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan as the result of a
C.I.A. sting operation. The C.I.A. had Osama bin Laden in its
sights, *camera and rifle,* on or about September 26, 2001 and
failed to capture or kill him in favor of gaining a videotape
confession of sorts to support the Bush Administration’s invasion
of Afghanistan and Iraq. If Osama bin Laden had been captured or
killed on or about September 26, 2001 – there would have been no
international support for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
As for documentation of the authenticity process -- none exists.
If it did, the government would have provided it. It would serve
the government’s purpose to provide such documentation. However,
the reason documentation of the authenticity process does not exist
is not because the video is fake as some contend, but because there
was no need to authentic what the C.I.A. arranged. The C.I.A. knew
the videotape was authentic because they arranged the taping of it.
*This is treason.* All the evidence is in clear view. The writing
is on the wall. Read it.
~~~
[Ed Haas is the Editor of the Muckraker Report. Founded in 2002 by
Haas, the Muckraker Report has enjoyed a steady increase in
readership over the years. Haas served in the United States Marine
Corps from January 1983 to April 1994. He doesn't trust government
and has a hard time understanding people that do. He's keeping his
powder dry and rifles clean, in preparation for the next armed
American revolution. He maintains that there are things worth
dying for in life and that government, political agendas,
lobbyists, and corporations don't make that list. In his spare
time, he searches for his lost inalienable rights.]
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database:
269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/07 8:23 AM
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
