Gitmo prosecutor: Flight 93 was shot down on 9/11, go figure. Options

[mfk]

Gitmo prosecutor: Flight 93 was shot down on 9/11
07/23/2008 @ 8:08 pm
Filed by Reuters

By Jim Loney
Advertisement

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba, July 22 (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden's driver knew the target of the fourth hijacked jetliner in the Sept. 11 attacks, a prosecutor said on Tuesday in an attempt to draw a link between Salim Hamdan and the al Qaeda leadership in the first Guantanamo war crimes trial.

Hamdan's lawyer said in opening statements that the Yemeni, held for nearly seven years before his trial, was just a paid employee of the fugitive al Qaeda leader, a driver in the motor pool who never joined the militant group or plotted attacks on America.

But prosecutor Timothy Stone told the six-member jury of U.S. military officers who will decide Hamdan's guilt or innocence that Hamdan had inside knowledge of the 2001 attacks on the United States because he overheard a conversation between bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

"If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks.

The tribunal's chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial. Morris declined to say if the "dome" was a reference to the U.S. Capitol.

"Virtually no one knew the intended target, but the accused knew," Stone said.

United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in a field in rural Pennsylvania. U.S. officials have never stated it was shot down although rumors saying that abound to this day.

Hamdan, a father of two with a fourth-grade education, is charged with conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism in the first U.S. war crimes trial since World War Two. He could face life in prison if convicted.

Prosecutors say Hamdan had access to al Qaeda's inner circle. Stone told the jury that Hamdan earned the trust of bin Laden and helped him flee after attacks on U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998 and the Sept. 11 attacks.

"He served as bodyguard, driver, transported and delivered weapons, ammunition and supplies to al Qaeda," Stone said.

Hamdan was being tried in a hilltop courthouse at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, which has been a lightning rod for criticism of the United States since early 2002, when it began housing a prison camp to hold alleged Taliban and al Qaeda fighters from the battlefields of Afghanistan.

The war crimes tribunal system has been criticized by human rights groups and defense lawyers, some of them U.S. military officers. Detainees have been held for years without charges.

Washington has declared them unlawful enemy combatants not entitled to the rights afforded formal prisoners of war.

Responding to the widespread criticism, Morris, the chief prosecutor, said on Tuesday: "In my opinion they are seeing the most just war crimes trial that anyone has ever seen."

WORKED FOR WAGES

Defense lawyer Harry Schneider described Hamdan as a poor Yemeni who lost his parents at a young age and lived on the streets, where he developed a knack for fixing cars.

"The evidence is that he worked for wages. He didn't wage attacks on America," he said. "He had a job because he had to earn a living, not because he had a jihad against America."

"There will be no evidence that Mr. Hamdan espoused or believed or embraced any form of what you will hear about, radical Islam beliefs, extremist Muslim beliefs," he said.

The first two prosecution witnesses were U.S. military officers who were in Afghanistan during the early days of the U.S. invasion in 2001. Both addressed a key issue at trial -- whether Hamdan had surface-to-air missiles when he was captured at a checkpoint near Takhteh Pol in November 2001.

Defense lawyers dispute the prosecution's contention that Hamdan had the weapons. But a U.S. officer identified only as "Sergeant Major A" said the missiles were found in the "trunk of a car driven by Mr. Hamdan."

He said troops also found a mortar manual with "al Qaeda" on the front, a book by bin Laden and a card issued to al Qaeda fighters and signed by Mullah Omar, the Taliban commander.

Ali Soufan, an al Qaeda expert with the FBI, took the jury through a long description of al Qaeda's hierarchy and called bin Laden "the emir, the prince." He said Hamdan was part of bin Laden's security detail.

"The people who are around bin Laden have to be trusted ... true believers in the cause," he said. (Editing by Eric Beech)

[ƒ(x)]

I always kind of figured it was shot down. Am I crazy or does anybody else remember a report on 9/11 that said it was shot down? Of course there were all kinds of crazy rumors in the news that day so who knows.

[mfk]

I always kind of figured it was shot down. Am I crazy or does anybody else remember a report on 9/11 that said it was shot down? Of course there were all kinds of crazy rumors in the news that day so who knows.

I remember aerial footage of the crash site that had the tail section 5 miles away from the fuselage.

[Danny Vermin]

Even if it was, does this change anything?

Should they have let it proceed to it's intended target?

[The Good Doctor]

Even if it was, does this change anything?

Should they have let it proceed to it's intended target?

Nope, the government was totally justified in shooting it down. I just resent the stupid lie about "heroes" taking the plane down to save others. It was the only 'feel-good' story in a time when everything was negative, but sadly, it's bullshit.

Cheney even admitted that they scrambled jets to shoot it down, but he claims that the plane was already taken down by the heroes by the time the jets got there...

[John D]

Read this again. Carefully this time. I have added my own bold text to help.

... But prosecutor Timothy Stone told the six-member jury of U.S. military officers who will decide Hamdan's guilt or innocence that Hamdan had inside knowledge of the 2001 attacks on the United States because he overheard a conversation between bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

"If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks.

The tribunal's chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial. Morris declined to say if the "dome" was a reference to the U.S. Capitol.

"Virtually no one knew the intended target, but the accused knew," Stone said.

The prosecuter isn't saying the aircraft was shot down. He's quoting the accused. The accused believed the aircraft was shot down.

Put away the foil. That is all.

[woof.]

Even if it was, does this change anything?

Should they have let it proceed to it's intended target?

it means that the government lied through it's teeth, repeatedly. which in and of itself is not surprising, but it would call in to question the veracity of other "official" explanations of events of the day.

[woof.]

Read this again. Carefully this time. I have added my own bold text to help.
The prosecuter isn't saying the aircraft was shot down. He's quoting the accused. The accused believed the aircraft was shot down.

Put away the foil. That is all.

it would be nice to see the quote in context.

[Orbitron]

Even if it was, does this change anything?

Should they have let it proceed to it's intended target?

No, it doesn't. I have no problem if they shot it down. It was lose a planeful of citizens vs. a possibly much larger loss of life. If it had crashed into a busy downtown street anywhere on the east coast it would have caused massive casualties, there was a chance to take it down in a rural area with no ground casualties and they took it.

I don't even have a problem with the whole "brave citizens tried to take back the plane" scenario if they chose to create it. It's a good story. One we needed at the time.

[benhamean]

I would have shot it down.
I think that the American populace would understand the necessity of shooting it down.
The story of the passengers forcing the crash is a good one, and would be legendary if true, but because of other 'fake' heroic patriotic stories from this era (Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, etc.), there is justified skepticism of the official account of this flight...

[Danny Vermin]

but it would call in to question the veracity of other "official" explanations of events of the day.

only if that's what you want to find.

not everyone jumps to the most rash and unprovable conclusions when they find something amiss.

If your girlfriend or wife comes home a little late from work - do you automatically assume she's been cheating on you for months, and just completed making a 125 man gangbang porno movie in the back of a hovercraft?

Of course not, dummy.

[mhaverty]

I would have shot it down.
I think that the American populace would understand the necessity of shooting it down.
The story of the passengers forcing the crash is a good one, and would be legendary if true, but because of other 'fake' heroic patriotic stories from this era (Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, etc.), there is justified skepticism of the official account of this flight...

propoganda has been part and parcel of every war effort.

[DanPM]

I saw the movie and they didn't shoot the plane down. What am I to believe?

[woof.]

No, it doesn't. I have no problem if they shot it down. It was lose a planeful of citizens vs. a possibly much larger loss of life. If it had crashed into a busy downtown street anywhere on the east coast it would have caused massive casualties, there was a chance to take it down in a rural area with no ground casualties and they took it.

I don't even have a problem with the whole "brave citizens tried to take back the plane" scenario if they chose to create it. It's a good story. One we needed at the time.

let's roll!

[Maximum Tor]

but it would call in to question the veracity of other "official" explanations of events of the day.

[woof.]

only if that's what you want to find.

not everyone jumps to the most rash and unprovable conclusions when they find something amiss.

If your girlfriend or wife comes home a little late from work - do you automatically assume she's been cheating on you for months, and just completed making a 125 man gangbang porno movie in the back of a hovercraft?

Of course not, dummy.

that's a bit of an oversimplification.

if she came home late repeatedly, and one of her friends misspoke and said something about going out to_____, on a night that she said she was working, you could pretty much assume, with good reason, she was lying about the rest.

[Dave K.]

I still believe that the passengers took down the plane.
Otherwise, that mean the government actually did something
right that day.

Besides, if the story was made up by the gov't, would they have
had a gay guy leading the charge?

[Danny Vermin]

that's a bit of an oversimplification.

if she came home late repeatedly, and one of her friends misspoke and said something about going out to_____, on a night that she said she was working, you could pretty much assume, with good reason, she was lying about the rest.

9/11 didn't happen repeatedly.

It happened only once.

[Danny Vermin]

Besides, if the story was made up by the gov't, would they have
had a gay guy leading the charge?

This post has been edited by Danny Vermin: Jul 24 2008, 10:02 AM

[Maximum Tor]

If your wife comes home and she starts talking about how jet fuel can't melt steel or building seven then she probably wasn't working late but rather receiving several head wounds.

[Brootsquad]

I still believe that the passengers took down the plane.
Otherwise, that mean the government actually did something
right that day.

Besides, if the story was made up by the gov't, would they have
had a gay guy leading the charge?

The way I understand it the terrorists crashed the plane because they didn't want the passengers to get control back. They needed some type of crash to die in battle and go to heaven.

[Danny Vermin]

The way I understand it the terrorists crashed the plane because they didn't want the passengers to get control back. They needed some type of crash to die in battle and go to heaven.

yeah, his is kind of what I figured too.

[woof.]

9/11 didn't happen repeatedly.

It happened only once.

OK danny, the government would never lie to cover their asses, or to "catapult the propoganda", I stand corrected.

why you pretend to be so thick is beyond me... hows this, if she told you that she was working late, and you found out otherwise, you may (with good reason)question the other times she told you she was somewhere. If someone is inclined to lie about one thing, you can pretty safely assume they would have no problem lying about something else...is that simple enough?

[ƒ(x)]

it means that the government lied through it's teeth, repeatedly. which in and of itself is not surprising, but it would call in to question the veracity of other "official" explanations of events of the day.

Actually it wouldn't. The theory that the plane was shot down has nothing to do with the other 9/11 conspiracy theories. Why would they shoot down a plane if they knew about it and wanted it to happen?

[coughlin]

I don't even have a problem with the whole "brave citizens tried to take back the plane" scenario if they chose to create it. It's a good story. One we needed at the time.

this is one of the single most baffling things i've ever read here...