Obama Administration Caught Conspiring to Destroy Key 9/11 Evidence in Trial at Gitmo

It is no longer a conspiracy theory, that the United States government is actively moving to suppress evidence, silence discussion, and cover up the truth about the tragic events that unfolded on September 11, 2001 — they are doing it out in the open.

Earlier this week, the Free Thought Project reported on a U.S. government prosecutor, Ed Ryan, who announced that a military court is being asked to withhold from the public a cockpit recording from a hijacked jet in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, because it contains evidence needed for upcoming trials. Joanne Stocker, reporting from Guantanamo Bay explained:

“[The voice recording] has significant events for the purposes of the government’s case-in-chief,” Ryan told Judge James Pohl. “It proves hijacking in the first place. It proves intent. It proves the initial murders of the crew in the cockpit — the sounds of which can be heard — and, at the end, it contains the attempts to retake the airliner.”

The recording is from United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in a field in Pennsylvania before reaching its intended target. Flight 93’s recording is unique as it is the only one which survived the September 11 attacks.

Keeping the recording a secret is a kick in the teeth for the families who lost their loved ones on that day, especially the ones on Flight 93. It is also entirely unnecessary. The ones who are allegedly on trial are in Gitmo, and American citizens listening to that audio would have zero impact on the outcome of these hearings.

As if admitting to keeping evidence secret in the largest act of terror ever committed on US soil wasn’t ominous enough, a court document that was unsealed this week, shows the Obama administration conspired to destroy evidence relating to the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, accused architect of the terror attacks.

According to a report in the Guardian,

The judge overseeing the premiere military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay effectively conspired with the prosecution to destroy evidence relevant to defending the accused architect of the 9/11 attacks, according to a scathing court document.

Army Col James Pohl, who this week at Guantanamo is presiding over a resumption of pretrial hearings in the already troubled case, “in concert with the prosecution, manipulated secret proceedings and the use of secret orders”, the document alleges, preventing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s defense team from learning Pohl had permitted the Obama administration to destroy the evidence.

“First they tell us they will not show us the evidence, but they will show our lawyers. Now, they don’t even show the lawyers. Why don’t they just kill us?” Mohammed, who faces execution, is quoted as saying in the filing.

According to the filing, it is unknown exactly what evidence was destroyed as the nature of the information is classified. However, if the prosecution’s case was solid enough, the need to destroy evidence would never have come up.

The entire idea of suppressing or destroying evidence only tends to cast doubt on the official version of events that day. If the case was as cut and dry as the public is told, then why not show all the facts?

Unfortunately, this is yet again, another step back in finding out what actually happened that day. One thing we do however know is that the United States government seems hell bent on keeping the citizens in the dark.

Destroying the evidence in secret while permitting the defense to believe it had been preserved has “substantially gutted” the credibility of the military commission and “irreparably harmed” Mohammed’s ability to defend himself in a death-penalty case, the lawyers say. The episode “call[s] into question Judge Pohl’s impartiality”.

“This may well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back in underscoring the unviability of the military commissions,” Karen Greenberg, the director of Fordham University Law School’s Center on National Security, said in an interview with the Guardian.

“Remember, a main reason they couldn’t have this [trial] in federal court was that it would have been such a circus. And now you have a full-blown circus, with judicial and every other kind of misstepping.”