...or proceed to blog or #OpBlackheath page.
"Gulietto Chiesa interviews Ferdinando Imposimato, honorary president
of the Italian Supreme court (Cotre di Cassazione)
starts aT 00:29
GC: Until now nobody said anything, nobody has published anything about
Ferdinando Imposimato having started all these initiatives. Complete
Silence.
00.36
written title: Gulietto Chiesa interviews Ferdinando Imposimato,
042.
FI: I have been working on 9/11 for almost 11 years now.
0045
FI: In the sense that, paradoxically, I started to be interested in a
possibility of an direct attack on the US soil already in 2000.
0058-1.11
FI: For a simple reason that I have read in the newspapers and several
documents that a possibility of such an attack had been taken into
consideration.
01:11- images of NY
01.18-01: 35
FI: On 11 September, 2001 I was supposed to be in the US to represent an
non governmental organisation, which works on drug related issues, and I
did not go because I was afraid that an event of this type may have
happened.
01:39-01.45
FI: The risk of such an event was announced several times. I'm not a
magician. I'm simply a person who tries to interpret the evidence. So, I
didn't go.
01.50
FI: I'm surprised that the commission that examined the events of 9/11,
one of the two commissions, said that the attack had been a surprise.
02:03
FI : How can you say that it was a surprise if I, a modest judge, ex
judge-instructor of the Roman court, had a perception from those
elements of information that emerged publicly that it could have
happened.
02:20-02:35
FI: And they say it was a surprise, when the US authorities received a
series of data that allowed to predicate an attack of this type.
02: 36
GC: You say that there is an active compliance of the security services.
02:45
FI: The facts are that the CIA was informed that Mohammed Atta was
preparing the attacks.
02:53
FI: The CIA followed and surveyed Mohammed Atta until 1998 in Germany,
in Hamburg.
03:03
FI: This is the fact that also the Commission knew.
03:09
FI: The CIA followed Mohammed Atta, also through the phone interception,
until 2 June 2000
03: 20
FI: At this moment Mohammed Atta leaves Hamburg and goes to Venice and
initiates a training at the school of Uffman.
03: 42
FI: Here begins a series of events that would be later verified. First
he did not have a visa M1 that he should have had.
03: 53
FI: He had a visa released by the consulate in Jeddah.
03: 58
FI: The consulate in Jeddah, as it was confirmed by several witnesses,
was run by the CIA.
04:04
FI: So the CIA controlled whoever applied for the visa.
04:16
FI: This fact is the beginning of the whole event, because the consulate
at Jeddah released visas that should not have been released,
04: 20
FI: because they concerned individuals already signalled as terrorists
in Saudi Arabia.
04: 38
FI: This individuals left in January 2001. On 15 January they arrived to
Los Angeles.
04: 51
FI: The CIA was perfectly informed about it, because they released the
visas in Jeddah.
05:00
FI: However, the CIA did not inform the FBI about it.
05:06
GC: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but not only the CIA knew about it. The
FBI knew about it as well.
05:15
GC: According to the official inquest number one that was in part
secret, but now we know it, and those documents arrived as well at the
second commission, the official Commission, 'the 9/11 Commission
report',
05:26
GC: that two of the terrorists, not Muhammed Atta, but two others, lived
for about 10 months from the 15 January, in San Diego, California, in a
house of an FBI agent, Abdul Sattar Sheikh.
05:37
GC: not only that, but they also received money from another FBI agent,
Alfayumi.
05:55
FI: There are FBI agents who denounced these facts, one of whom was
Kenneth Williams, also included by Jessie Ventura in his book.
06: 11
FI : We have to read very attentively these documents in which some FBI
agents informed about the events the head of FBI, David Mueller.
06: 30
FI: There is a law in the internal criminal code that says that if an
authority has a knowledge of the criminal events that are about to
happen and does not act to prevent them, this person contributes to
these facts.
06:49
FI: This law is also included in the Italian criminal code, article 40,
that is 'to not prevent the event that your duty is to prevent is the
equivalent of causing this event'.
07:09
FI: This law is also present in the American Federal law, that includes
a causation by both active action and omission.
07: 20
FI: This concerns the best of all hypothesis that the CIA knew, but did
not react.
07: 33
FI: However, there is also anther hypothesis that should be
investigated, that the CIA actively assisted those terrorists,
07: 46
FI: helping them by releasing the visas that should not have been
released to those individuals suspected of terrorism,
07:55
FI: and by letting them stay in the US and prepare in the aviation
schools.
08: 05
FI: And this is an active assistance.
08:09
FI: So, on the one hand, we have the omission in the sense of not
preventing the events; and on the other hand, the active involvement,
not only by releasing the visas,
08:24
FI: but also by financing of Muhammed Atta and the others
throughhttp://xoomer.virgilio.it/911_subito/nuova_indagine.html this
Sheikh Omar Said, who was an individual extremely well known to the CIA,
08:45
FI: an English citizen, who was in contact with the head of the ISI,
that is the Pakistani Secret Service.
09:03
FI: According to numerous sources in the FBI, this head of the ISI gave
an order to Sheikh Omar to pay 120 thousand dollars to Mohammed Atta a
year before the attack on the Twin Towers, through a bank in the United
Arab Emirates.
09: 27
FI: This relatively 'pacific' fact act led to a demission of the head of
the ISI.
09: 40
FI: But, according to the criminal law of any country, he would have
been charged for the participation in the mass murder!
09: 55
FI: So the knowledge of the financing the terrorists by the head of the
ISI's would imply for any national court in the world the accusation of
the head of the ISI of the participation in the massacre, the moral
participation.
10:15
FI: These are examples of the episodes and facts that needed and need to
be investigated.
10:24
FI: These facts impose an investigation by the American judicial
authorities. If the American judiciary will not start this
investigation, some other authority should do it.
10: 32
GC: That is why I would like to ask you, why in your opinion, the
official 9/11 Commission piratically did not mention those questions?
10: 42
FI: In my opinion, there was an intention to cover up these facts,
Gulietto Chiesa interviews Ferdinando Imposimato, honorary president of
the Italian Supreme court (Cotre di Cassazione)
starts aT 00:29
GC: Until now nobody said anything, nobody has published anything about
Ferdinando Imposimato having started all these initiatives. Complete
Silence.
00.36
written title: Gulietto Chiesa interviews Ferdinando Imposimato,
042.
FI: I have been working on 9/11 for almost 11 years now.
0045
FI: In the sense that, paradoxically, I started to be interested in a
possibility of an direct attack on the US soil already in 2000.
0058-1.11
FI: For a simple reason that I have read in the newspapers and several
documents that a possibility of such an attack had been taken into
consideration.
01:11- images of NY
01.18-01: 35
FI: On 11 September, 2001 I was supposed to be in the US to represent an
non governmental organisation, which works on drug related issues, and I
did not go because I was afraid that an event of this type may have
happened.
01:39-01.45
FI: The risk of such an event was announced several times. I'm not a
magician. I'm simply a person who tries to interpret the evidence. So, I
didn't go.
01.50
FI: I'm surprised that the commission that examined the events of 9/11,
one of the two commissions, said that the attack had been a surprise.
02:03
FI : How can you say that it was a surprise if I, a modest judge, ex
judge-instructor of the Roman court, had a perception from those
elements of information that emerged publicly that it could have
happened.
02:20-02:35
FI: And they say it was a surprise, when the US authorities received a
series of data that allowed to predicate an attack of this type.
02: 36
GC: You say that there is an active compliance of the security services.
02:45
FI: The facts are that the CIA was informed that Mohammed Atta was
preparing the attacks.
02:53
FI: The CIA followed and surveyed Mohammed Atta until 1998 in Germany,
in Hamburg.
03:03
FI: This is the fact that also the Commission knew.
03:09
FI: The CIA followed Mohammed Atta, also through the phone interception,
until 2 June 2000
03: 20
FI: At this moment Mohammed Atta leaves Hamburg and goes to Venice and
initiates a training at the school of Uffman.
03: 42
FI: Here begins a series of events that would be later verified. First
he did not have a visa M1 that he should have had.
03: 53
FI: He had a visa released by the consulate in Jeddah.
03: 58
FI: The consulate in Jeddah, as it was confirmed by several witnesses,
was run by the CIA.
04:04
FI: So the CIA controlled whoever applied for the visa.
04:16
FI: This fact is the beginning of the whole event, because the consulate
at Jeddah released visas that should not have been released,
04: 20
FI: because they concerned individuals already signalled as terrorists
in Saudi Arabia.
04: 38
FI: This individuals left in January 2001. On 15 January they arrived to
Los Angeles.
04: 51
FI: The CIA was perfectly informed about it, because they released the
visas in Jeddah.
05:00
FI: However, the CIA did not inform the FBI about it.
05:06president of the Italian Supreme court
GC: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but not only the CIA knew about it. The
FBI knew about it as well.
05:15
GC: According to the official inquest number one that was in part
secret, but now we know it, and those documents arrived as well at the
second commission, the official Commission, 'the 9/11 Commission
report',
05:26
GC: that two of the terrorists, not Muhammed Atta, but two others, lived
for about 10 months from the 15 January, in San Diego, California, in a
house of an FBI agent, Abdul Sattar Sheikh.
05:37
GC: not only that, but they also received money from another FBI agent,
Alfayumi.
05:55
FI: There are FBI agents who denounced these facts, one of whom was
Kenneth Williams, also included by Jessie Ventura in his book.
06: 11
FI : We have to read very attentively these documents in which some FBI
agents informed about the events the head of FBI, David Mueller.
06: 30
FI: There is a law in the internal criminal code that says that if an
authority has a knowledge of the criminal events that are about to
happen and does not act to prevent them, this person contributes to
these facts.
06:49
FI: This law is also included in the Italian criminal code, article 40,
that is 'to not prevent the event that your duty is to prevent is the
equivalent of causing this event'.
07:09
FI: This law is also present in the American Federal law, that includes
a causation by both active action and omission.
07: 20
FI: This concerns the best of all hypothesis that the CIA knew, but did
not react.
07: 33
FI: However, there is also anther hypothesis that should be
investigated, that the CIA actively assisted those terrorists,
07: 46
FI: helping them by releasing the visas that should not have been
released to those individuals suspected of terrorism,
07:55
FI: and by letting them stay in the US and prepare in the aviation
schools.
08: 05
FI: And this is an active assistance.
08:09
FI: So, on the one hand, we have the omission in the sense of not
preventing the events; and on the other hand, the active involvement,
not only by releasing the visas,
08:24
FI: but also by financing of Muhammed Atta and the others through this
Sheikh Omar Said, who was an individual extremely well known to the CIA,
08:45
FI: an English citizen, who was in contact with the head of the ISI,
that is the Pakistani Secret Service.
09:03
FI: According to numerous sources in the FBI, this head of the ISI gave
an order to Sheikh Omar to pay 120 thousand dollars to Mohammed Atta a
year before the attack on the Twin Towers, through a bank in the United
Arab Emirates.
09: 27
FI: This relatively 'pacific' fact act led to a demission of the head of
the ISI.
09: 40
FI: But, according to the criminal law of any country, he would have
been charged for the participation in the mass murder!
09: 55
FI: So the knowledge of the financing the terrorists by the head of the
ISI's would imply for any national court in the world the accusation of
the head of the ISI of the participation in the massacre, the moral
participation.
10:15
FI: These are examples of the episodes and facts that needed and need to
be investigated.
10:24
FI: These facts impose an investigation by the American judicial
authorities. If the American judiciary will not start this
investigation, some other authority should do it.
10: 32
GC: That is why I would like to ask you, why in your opinion, the
official 9/11 Commission piratically did not mention those questions?
10: 42
FI: In my opinion, there was an intention to cover up these facts,
because they have provoked a clear embarrassment.
10: 48
FI: I'm not talking here about the diverse general accusations of the
whole of the American administration, the whole of America.
10: 55
FI: I'm taking about the specific facts that regarded some top official
within the CIA and the head of the FBI.
11. 15
FI: Because the head of the FBI had been repetitively informed with the
reports that had been sent to him on 5 July, on 10 July, 15 July, 6
August by the courageous and loyal agents of FBI, and there was no
follow up on these reports.
11.30
GC: You have also referred to the three towers that collapsed that
morning. That is 2 in the morning, hit by the planes, and the third one
in the afternoon without being hit by any plane.
11. 48
GC: It seems to me that you imply that there was a preparation of this
event beyond the attack planned by the eventual terrorists.
11.58
GC: To collapse the towers by wiring them with the explosives you need
somebody to do it, and they couldn't have been the terrorists that did
it.
12.10
FI: Obviously, I am not a scientist. And in those cases a judge or a
prosecutor has to refer to a scientist.
12: 20
FI: From the analysis made by the scientists, it emerged that it was
impossible that a building that had metallic robust structure could have
crumbled down in just a few seconds!
12. 37
FI: I have seen this building that was crumbling down in a few seconds
contradicting the internal structure of this building.
12: 55
FI: I'm saying that in this sort of cases, in all countries of the whole
world, there would be a public process against everybody involved,
Mussaui, the head of the ISI, and other identified as accomplices.
13: 10
FI: In this public process, you have to give the opportunity to the
victims, the families of the victims of 9/11 to receive the knowledge of
the events from the proper experts.
13.31http://xoomer.virgilio.it/911_subito/nuova_indagine.htmlhttp://xoomer.virgilio.it/911_subito/nuova_indagine.html
FI: Because according to rules of the 'due process of law' defined in
the US and the countries of the common law, such assessments should not
have been done by one and the same authority, the authority that defends
the state and that is possibly responsible for these events.
13.48
FI: but that these assessments are made through a cross-examination of
experts. That is, by a public expert, or an expert of a prosecutor, and
by an expert nominated by the families of the victims.
14:08
GC: Does it not seem strange to you, that during the last 10 years,
apart from the process of Mussaui, who did not participate in the
attacks, because he was in prison, there was no other process initiated
in the US?
14. 20
IF: This is a very surprising fact and the indication that there was an
intention to cover up the attacks.
14: 30
IF: In my opinion there is a need for a public process in the US, in
order to give a possibility to all the parties concerned, the 'class
action' that would involve all the American citizens, but first off all
the families of the victims to know the truth which is not the official
one.
14: 55president of the Italian Supreme court president of the Italian
Supreme court
GC: Can I ask you a juridical question? What value have those
testimonies taken from people who were repeatedly water-boarded?
15:03
FI: They have no value.
15:06
GC: Also in the US?
15: 07
FI: Also in the US, because there exist the universal rules of the just
process.
15.20
FI: You have to consider that the US have signed the international
conventions. To recall just one, the International Covenant on the Civil
and Political Rights signed in New York in December 1966 and ratified by
the US.
15: 32
FI: in this covenant, the US obligates themselves to respect the rules
of the just process, to respect the witnesses and to respect the
defendants.
15: 40
FI: Any use of force denies the credibility of the witness, who does not
speak spontaneously, who is not a spontaneous contributor to the
judicial process.
16:00
FI: Such a contribution does not have any importance.
16:05
FI: What's more, such a person would not have been interviewed in
presence of a representative of the civil defence. Such a testimony does
not have any value.
16: 15
GC: We are very far here, because even the two presidents of the
Commission wrote in their book that they could not see any records of
these interrogations.
16:25
GC: Also, the special investigation commission could not see either
records, or verbal recordings of these interrogations. So we are in a
total darkness here.
16.30
FI: Yes, but we can make some clarifications. First of all, because the
State Secret Privilege cannot be used to cover facts that concern
massacres.
16:48
FI: This is a universal law that applies to Italy, to the US, so it is
not possible to invoke the State Secret Privilege to prevent the
knowledge of documents which are fundamental to discover the truth in
such a case.
16:56
GC: Also in the US?
17: 00
FI: Also in the US. Because this concerns the security. We are talking
here about the facts that concern the killing of over 3000 people, so
the State Secret Privilege has to be revoked, because it is not
constitutional and, at the first place, because it is against the
international conventions.
17: 25
FI: Secondly, there is a statute of the International Criminal Court
that sets rules that apply to all states, even those that did not signed
it.
17: 36
GC: In your opinion, why President Obama, who came after the
administration who was involved with this tragedy, did not do anything
to clarify this?
17: 46
FI: I think the problem is that he is not well informed about this case.
17:50
FI: because the people were misinformed. There was here a continuous
case of disinformation.
17: 56:
FI: If you look at what has happened after the 9/11 in what concerns the
Niger gate.
18:05
FI: Do you understand that this event of the Niger gate, that is to
invent a series of lies to justify the military intervention in Iraq was
due to the disinformation of some newspapers.
18:20
FI: such as Judith Miller, or the Washington Post, the New York Times,
and unfortunately also La Republica,
18:27
FI: which before the war of March 2003, published 'facts' that later had
to deny.
18:48
FI: But when were this lies discovered? After the war, when it was
already useless.
18:55
FI: First, they have alimented the theory of the preventive war, and
then the war began, and then they recognized the error, but it was
useless, because the war continued for another 7 years.
19:02
GC: And continues until now.
19:10
FI: So, I think Obama did not have a good knowledge about it. It is not
that Obama knows everything. He reads newspapers.
19:16
FI: But what is in the newspapers? I read a series of articles, also in
Corierre della serra by individuals who came over to Italy to theorise
about the necessity of the preventive wars.
19:30
FI: This newspapers contributed to the total disinformation. And our
newspapers contributed to the distribution of the false information that
were diffused in the US.
19:45
GC: But when the Secretary of the State Colin Powel goes to the United
Nation, to the Security Council, and publicly states 'we have the
evidence' and rises his hand and shows a black flask,
19: 57
GC: and says we have the evidence that Saddam Hussein has the arms of
mass destruction, can one work out there is a crime involved?
20:00
FI: Yes, but here there is an intermediary case between stupidity and
bad faith. I would say stupidity rather than bed faith, because one
cannot go like this bringing this thing and say that there is evidence.
20:20
FI: but later on Bush recognized, after the war, that it was an error.
This was not an error. It was prepared.
20:32
FI: and then I want to tell you the last thing, the very important
thing. During the investigation of the 9/11 Commission it was stated
that the CIA established a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.
20:50
FI: This was a lie that was later dismissed by the same Commission, but
it shows that the CIA wanted to establish this link, to blame Saddam
Hussein and justify the war.
21:15
FI: As you can see, we cannot just examine the events of 9/11.
21: 18
FI: We have to investigate what happened before and after the 9/11.
21: 25
GC: I absolutely agree, there is no doubt about it. You intent to bring
this material to the attention of the International Criminal Court in
the Hague. And here are my two questions.
21:36
GC: First question is: the US do not recognize the territoriality of the
intervention of this Tribunal into the internal affairs of the US.
21:52
GC: Naturally there are huge international implications, because
immediately after 9/11, the US asked for the reunion of the NATO which
took place at the beginning of October 2001 .
22: 01
GC: The US arrives to Brussels where were gathered all the ambassadors
of the NATO and says, we have evidence.
22:09
This evidence was never reviled publicly. In this way the case became
European. There was a declaration made at the Nato that did not follow
any facts.
22:26
GC: This is the first question I want to ask you. What the International
Criminal Court at the Hague can do and how can it react to such an
initiative like yours that has international repercussions?
22:48
GC: Because the whole story of the last 10 years, if you are right, and
I think you are right, has to be reinvestigated.
22:55
FI: We have the duty and the right to know the truth, because what
happened on 9/11 does not concern only the US.
23.05
FI: It concerns the whole of humanity, because later these events
resulted in two wars,
23:10
FI: and it resulted in the global crisis that we are experiencing now.
This crisis is a child of those events.
23:15
FI: So, we cannot treat these events as a historical curiosity.
23:25
FI: At least we have to make sure there are no more preventive wars.
23:35
FI: So we have a duty to ask the American authorities to make an
investigation of precise facts.
23:49
FI: If the American authorities does not do anything, what I suspect
will happen, we have the right to apply to the Court at the Hague.
24:03
FI: This International Criminal Court can, in my opinion, and according
to the praxis, intervene also in the countries that did not sign the
stature of the Court.
24:15
FI: For example, Gaddafi did not sign the statute and they sent an
arrest warrant against him.
24:24
FI: This shows that the Court does not require a ratification of its
statute by a state to intervene in this state.
24: 39
FI: As it happened in case of Gaddaffi, the head of the state that did
not ratify the statute.
It is logical because there are countries in which the human rights are
violated and where the crimes against humanity are committed.
25:07
FI: and the International Court is competent in the matter of the crimes
against humanity according to the article 7 of its statute.
25:13
FI: When such crimes are committed the International Court can
intervene.
25:28
FI: So the fact that America did not sign the statute is not a legal
obstacle for the application of the jurisdiction of the Court in the US.
25: 42
FI: It is of course a democratic country and very powerful one, but the
rule is this.
25:45
FI: There was a precedent, a certain citizen made a complaint against
the Vatican. And also the Vatican did not sign the statute.
26:07
FI: So, the International Criminal Court after having examined the case
and gathered all evidence can intervene, also in the countries in which
the justice is not guaranteed and in which the human rights are violated
by the crimes against humanity.
26:20
GC: Technically, how do you want to proceed now at the Court? And what
are the possible technical responses that the Tribunal has to follow?
26: 34
FI: We will apply to the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court
with a complaint, the best documented as possible, in which we will list
the facts that in our opinion constitute the active involvement and the
involvement by omission in the crimes against humanity.
27: 01
FI: And we will ask for the verification of these facts by interviewing
the witnesses that we will indicate, and examining the documents,
27: 10
FI: and by asking for the revocation of the State Secrets Privilege on
documents that we were not able to access and which were not accessible
even to the Commission.
27:23
FI: To sum up, we will ask for a complete investigation in order to see
whether there is a legal ground to convict, or at least charge the
individuals responsible for those events.
27: 35
FI: We want to gather the biggest number of documents and data possible
from any source, also from the responsible media, and also from the
official investigative agencies.
27:52
FI: We also have this book by Jessie Ventura and his research. So we
will gather all evidence and incitations that will allow the
reconstruction of the dynamics of the facts,
28:10
FI: and then the responsibilities of those who had the duty to intervene
but did not intervene, and then those who helped the terrorists to
accomplish the attacks of 9/11.
28:20
GC: So how long will it take to have a response, is there any timeframe?
18:28
FI: there is no legal dead line. This is not a crime against a person,
this would be a private prosecution. This is a crime against humanity,
such as 9/11; these crimes are imprescriptible.
18: 41
FI: In this case the complaint can be made in any moment.
28:49:
FI: So first we have to complete all the documents, then we can also
supplement them, as it is not said that we have to provide them all at
once.
28: 56
FI: and then we make a complaint that I will sign asking others whether
they want to sign as well after having examined it and supplemented it.
29:00
FI: And I believe that within a few month we will make this complaint.
29:14
GC: Thank you very much." because they have provoked a clear
embarrassment.
10: 48
FI: I'm not talking here about the diverse general accusations of the
whole of the American administration, the whole of America.
10: 55
FI: I'm taking about the specific facts that regarded some top official
within the CIA and the head of the FBI.
11. 15
FI: Because the head of the FBI had been repetitively informed with the
reports that had been sent to him on 5 July, on 10 July, 15 July, 6
August by the courageous and loyal agents of FBI, and there was no
follow up on these reports.
11.30
GC: You have also referred to the three towers that collapsed that
morning. That is 2 in the morning, hit by the planes, and the third one
in the afternoon without being hit by any plane.
11. 48
GC: It seems to me that you imply that there was a preparation of this
event beyond the attack planned by the eventual terrorists.
11.58
GC: To collapse the towers by wiring them with the explosives you need
somebody to do it, and they couldn't have been the terrorists that did
it.
12.10
FI: Obviously, I am not a scientist. And in those cases a judge or a
prosecutor has to refer to a scientist.
12: 20
FI: From the analysis made by the scientists, it emerged that it was
impossible that a building that had metallic robust structure could have
crumbled down in just a few seconds!
12. 37
FI: I have seen this building that was crumbling down in a few seconds
contradicting the internal structure of this building.
12: 55
FI: I'm saying that in this sort of cases, in all countries of the whole
world, there would be a public process against everybody involved,
Mussaui, the head of the ISI, and other identified as accomplices.
13: 10
FI: In this public process, you have to give the opportunity to the
victims, the families of the victims of 9/11 to receive the knowledge of
the events from the proper experts.
13.31
FI: Because according to rules of the 'due process of law' defined in
the US and the countries of the common law, such assessments should not
have been done by one and the same authority, the authority that defends
the state and that is possibly responsible for these events.
13.48
FI: but that these assessments are made through a cross-examination of
experts. That is, by a public expert, or an expert of a prosecutor, and
by an expert nominated by the families of the victims.
14:08
GC: Does it not seem strange to you, that during the last 10 years,
apart from the process of Mussaui, who did not participate in the
attacks, because he was in prison, there was no other process initiated
in the US?
14. 20
IF: This is a very surprising fact and the indication that there was an
intention to cover up the attacks.
14: 30
IF: In my opinion there is a need for a public process in the US, in
order to give a possibility to all the parties concerned, the 'class
action' that would involve all the American citizens, but first off all
the families of the victims to know the truth which is not the official
one.
14: 55
GC: Can I ask you a juridical question? What value have those
testimonies taken from people who were repeatedly water-boarded?
15:03
FI: They have no value.
15:06
GC: Also in the US?
15: 07
FI: Also in the US, because there exist the universal rules of the just
process.
15.20
FI: You have to consider that the US have signed the international
conventions. To recall just one, the International Covenant on the Civil
and Political Rights signed in New York in December 1966 and ratified by
the US.
15: 32
FI: in this covenant, the US obligates themselves to respect the rules
of the just process, to respect the witnesses and to respect the
defendants.
15: 40
FI: Any use of force denies the credibility of the witness, who does not
speak spontaneously, who is not a spontaneous contributor to the
judicial process.
16:00
FI: Such a contribution does not have any importance.
16:05
FI: What's more, such a person would not have been interviewed in
presence of a representative of the civil defence. Such a testimony does
not have any value.
16: 15
GC: We are very far here, because even the two presidents of the
Commission wrote in their book that they could not see any records of
these interrogations.
16:25
GC: Also, the special investigation commission could not see either
records, or verbal recordings of these interrogations. So we are in a
total darkness here.
16.30
FI: Yes, but we can make some clarifications. First of all, because the
State Secret Privilege cannot be used to cover facts that concern
massacres.
16:48
FI: This is a universal law that applies to Italy, to the US, so it is
not possible to invoke the State Secret Privilege to prevent the
knowledge of documents which are fundamental to discover the truth in
such a case.
16:56
GC: Also in the US?
17: 00
FI: Also in the US. Because this concerns the security. We are talking
here about the facts that concern the killing of over 3000 people, so
the State Secret Privilege has to be revoked, because it is not
constitutional and, at the first place, because it is against the
international conventions.
17: 25
FI: Secondly, there is a statute of the International Criminal Court
that sets rules that apply to all states, even those that did not signed
it.
17: 36
GC: In your opinion, why President Obama, who came after the
administration who was involved with this tragedy, did not do anything
to clarify this?
17: 46
FI: I think the problem is that he is not well informed about this case.
17:50
FI: because the people were misinformed. There was here a continuous
case of disinformation.
17: 56:
FI: If you look at what has happened after the 9/11 in what concerns the
Niger gate.
18:05
FI: Do you understand that this event of the Niger gate, that is to
invent a series of lies to justify the military intervention in Iraq was
due to the disinformation of some newspapers.
18:20
FI: such as Judith Miller, or the Washington Post, the New York Times,
and unfortunately also La Republica,
18:27
FI: which before the war of March 2003, published 'facts' that later had
to deny.
18:48
FI: But when were this lies discovered? After the war, when it was
already useless.
18:55
FI: First, they have alimented the theory of the preventive war, and
then the war began, and then they recognized the error, but it was
useless, because the war continued for another 7 years.
19:02
GC: And continues until now.
19:10
FI: So, I think Obama did not have a good knowledge about it. It is not
that Obama knows everything. He reads newspapers.
19:16
FI: But what is in the newspapers? I read a series of articles, also in
Corierre della serra by individuals who came over to Italy to theorise
about the necessity of the preventive wars.
19:30
FI: This newspapers contributed to the total disinformation. And our
newspapers contributed to the distribution of the false information that
were diffused in the US.
19:45
GC: But when the Secretary of the State Colin Powel goes to the United
Nation, to the Security Council, and publicly states 'we have the
evidence' and rises his hand and shows a black flask,
19: 57
GC: and says we have the evidence that Saddam Hussein has the arms of
mass destruction, can one work out there is a crime involved?
20:00
FI: Yes, but here there is an intermediary case between stupidity and
bad faith. I would say stupidity rather than bed faith, because one
cannot go like this bringing this thing and say that there is evidence.
20:20
FI: but later on Bush recognized, after the war, that it was an error.
This was not an error. It was prepared.
20:32
FI: and then I want to tell you the last thing, the very important
thing. During the investigation of the 9/11 Commission it was stated
that the CIA established a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.
20:50
FI: This was a lie that was later dismissed by the same Commission, but
it shows that the CIA wanted to establish this link, to blame Saddam
Hussein and justify the war.
21:15
FI: As you can see, we cannot just examine the events of 9/11.
21: 18
FI: We have to investigate what happened before and after the 9/11.
21: 25
GC: I absolutely agree, there is no doubt about it. You intent to bring
this material to the attention of the International Criminal Court in
the Hague. And here are my two questions.
21:36
GC: First question is: the US do not recognize the territoriality of the
intervention of this Tribunal into the internal affairs of the US.
21:52
GC: Naturally there are huge international implications, because
immediately after 9/11, the US asked for the reunion of the NATO which
took place at the beginning of October 2001 .
22: 01
GC: The US arrives to Brussels where were gathered all the ambassadors
of the NATO and says, we have evidence.
22:09
This evidence was never reviled publicly. In this way the case became
European. There was a declaration made at the Nato that did not follow
any facts.
22:26
GC: This is the first question I want to ask you. What the International
Criminal Court at the Hague can do and how can it react to such an
initiative like yours that has international repercussions?
22:48
GC: Because the whole story of the last 10 years, if you are right, and
I think you are right, has to be reinvestigated.
22:55
FI: We have the duty and the right to know the truth, because what
happened on 9/11 does not concern only the US.
23.05
FI: It concerns the whole of humanity, because later these events
resulted in two wars,
23:10
FI: and it resulted in the global crisis that we are experiencing now.
This crisis is a child of those events.
23:15
FI: So, we cannot treat these events as a historical curiosity.
23:25
FI: At least we have to make sure there are no more preventive wars.
23:35
FI: So we have a duty to ask the American authorities to make an
investigation of precise facts.
23:49
FI: If the American authorities does not do anything, what I suspect
will happen, we have the right to apply to the Court at the Hague.
24:03
FI: This International Criminal Court can, in my opinion, and according
to the praxis, intervene also in the countries that did not sign the
stature of the Court.
24:15
FI: For example, Gaddafi did not sign the statute and they sent an
arrest warrant against him.
24:24
FI: This shows that the Court does not require a ratification of its
statute by a state to intervene in this state.
24: 39
FI: As it happened in case of Gaddaffi, the head of the state that did
not ratify the statute.
It is logical because there are countries in which the human rights are
violated and where the crimes against humanity are committed.
25:07
FI: and the International Court is competent in the matter of the crimes
against humanity according to the article 7 of its statute.
25:13
FI: When such crimes are committed the International Court can
intervene.
25:28
FI: So the fact that America did not sign the statute is not a legal
obstacle for the application of the jurisdiction of the Court in the US.
25: 42
FI: It is of course a democratic country and very powerful one, but the
rule is this.
25:45
FI: There was a precedent, a certain citizen made a complaint against
the Vatican. And also the Vatican did not sign the statute.
26:07
FI: So, the International Criminal Court after having examined the case
and gathered all evidence can intervene, also in the countries in which
the justice is not guaranteed and in which the human rights are violated
by the crimes against humanity.
26:20
GC: Technically, how do you want to proceed now at the Court? And what
are the possible technical responses that the Tribunal has to follow?
26: 34
FI: We will apply to the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court
with a complaint, the best documented as possible, in which we will list
the facts that in our opinion constitute the active involvement and the
involvement by omission in the crimes against humanity.
27: 01
FI: And we will ask for the verification of these facts by interviewing
the witnesses that we will indicate, and examining the documents,
27: 10
FI: and by asking for the revocation of the State Secrets Privilege on
documents that we were not able to access and which were not accessible
even to the Commission.
27:23
FI: To sum up, we will ask for a complete investigation in order to see
whether there is a legal ground to convict, or at least charge the
individuals responsible for those events.
27: 35
FI: We want to gather the biggest number of documents and data possible
from any source, also from the responsible media, and also from the
official investigative agencies.
27:52
FI: We also have this book by Jessie Ventura and his research. So we
will gather all evidence and incitations that will allow the
reconstruction of the dynamics of the facts,
28:10
FI: and then the responsibilities of those who had the duty to intervene
but did not intervene, and then those who helped the terrorists to
accomplish the attacks of 9/11.
28:20
GC: So how long will it take to have a response, is there any timeframe?
18:28
FI: there is no legal dead line. This is not a crime against a person,
this would be a private prosecution. This is a crime against humanity,
such as 9/11; these crimes are imprescriptible.
18: 41
FI: In this case the complaint can be made in any moment.
28:49:
FI: So first we have to complete all the documents, then we can also
supplement them, as it is not said that we have to provide them all at
once.
28: 56
FI: and then we make a complaint that I will sign asking others whether
they want to sign as well after having examined it and supplemented it.
29:00
FI: And I believe that within a few month we will make this complaint.
29:14
GC: Thank you very much."
What are you waiting for? Tweet