Note: A link to my submission is on the page referred to just above. A mouse click on that page should cause a copy of the pdf file to be downloaded although other means of downloading, such as the use of the Linux utility wget does not. So the command "wget http://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/www/nhrcc/submissions.nsf/list/D459E9F1D35E1BA9CA25762A00063C12/$file/James_SINNAMON_AGWW-7T293B.pdf" won't cause the file to download. - JS, 21 Jun 11.
I learnt on 2 September that it was not to be published because it was claimed that "the content of the submission could be construed to be defamatory." In a response, I asked that the defamatory content be shown to me. I pointed out that the closest thing I could find to a defamatory statement was, in fact, a statement of the truth. That was the following statement:
"Many who question the official version of 9/11 go as far as to argue that, because of mountains of physical evidence which contradicts the official story and the fact that senior members of the Bush administration have been caught out lying and contradicting themselves, there is a prima facie case that members of the Bush administration themselves were complicit in the September 11 attacks."
Moreover, I pointed out that statements, made since 11 September 2001 by former President George W Bush, President Barack Obama and our own Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, without any proof, that Islamist extremists, operating from sanctuaries inside Afghanistan and Pakistan, had orchestrated the terrorist atrocities of 9/11, Bali, the London Tube Bombing, the Madrid Train Bombings, etc., were, in fact defamatory, or, indeed worse than defamatory, because they had become the pretexts for wars of aggression and the deaths of at least many hundreds of thousands of innocent people, the maiming of hundreds of thousands more and the displacement of millions.
I pointed out that to censor my document, without any proper legal basis, would have made a mockery of the purpose of the Human Rights Consultation, given that one of the issues it was meant to investigate was "Freedom of Expression".
Happily, my points were taken and I learnt only today that all four submissions, including my submission on "National security and terrorism" had been published.3
I include the submission further below, together with a minor correction, which will be pointed out that I asked them to make.
I expect that many will find the content as confronting as I did, when people tried to put the same to me until up to two years ago.
Nevertheless, I strongly urge people not only to consider carefully what I have written, but also do your own research. By all means, also read material which purports to debunk the views of those who reject the official explanation of 9/11 Two such sites are www.debunking911.com and ae911truth.info/ (the latter being what I found to be a very unconvincing response to the web-site of "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" (ae911truth.org/)). I found it especially useful, in the early stages, to read debates between 9/11 Truthers and 9/11 Deniers. That made it possible for me to judge the comparative quality of arguments put forward by both camps and, indeed, which side of the discussion was even addressing the evidence. It also allowed me to learn what are the major arguments use on both sides of the discussion. One such discussion is the now finished Online Opinion discussion "9/11 Truth".
Please don't be put off if you happen to stumble across people for whom you have had high regard who assure you that the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement is "completely nuts" as Phillip Adams is fond of saying. If they won't bother explaining why they think so (except to appeal to the authority of other supposedly credible people and personally attack 9/11 Truthers), then remain sceptical. People whom I previously had a high regard for who insist on the truth of the Official Conspiracy Theory discourage any independent verification of the 9/11 controversy, include Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn editor of the the ostensibly left wing US magazine CounterPunch, the aforementioned Phillip Adams and famous supposed 'sceptics' James Randi and Michael Shermer. Nearly all the alternative newsmedia and incredibly, the far left, seemingly unanimously, promote the Official Conspiracy Theory and dismiss the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement. (see also Why do Larvartus Prodeo, WebDiary and other alternative news sources impede discussion of 9/11?)
One thing we can all be certain of is that if I am wrong, as so many have insisted that I am, then the Human Rights Commission will face little difficulty in shooting down my arguments in flames and making me appear to be a fool.
I am not expecting this to occur.
This submission disputes the entire justification for the draconian anti-terrorist laws that have taken away from ordinary citizens, basic human rights and civil liberties that were once taken for granted in Australia.
As few cannot be unaware the justification for these draconian laws and the associated imposts upon our daily lives such as airport security checks1 was the spectacular and deadly terrorist attack of 11 September 2001, the anthrax scare that shortly ensued and a number of other deadly terrorist attacks that have occurred since then - Bali, the Madrid bombing and the London Tube bombing.
Much of Australian public opinion had come to accept that the curtailments of our rights are a price well worth paying in order to prevent similar tragedies from ever occurring on our own shores.
However, a large number of credible, authoritative and well known figures as well as a substantial sections of public opinion in the United States, and even more so, outside the United States question the official explanations of these attacks. They argue that the evidence that the attacks were perpetrated by a ubiquitous world wide terrorist network known as 'al Qaeda' has never been produced. They also argue that the investigations by the 9/11 Commission and the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) failed to ask many critical questions and ignored a great deal of evidence submitted to them.
The supposed evidence of Al Qaeda's guilt that was given to NATO by Colin Powell in order to win NATO's participation in the so-called 'war on terror' has never been made public and the evidence promised by Colin Powell to the United Nations, that would have legally made the United Nations a participant in the 'war on terror', was never produced.
Many have therefore called for the holding of a new and thorough investigation that would properly examine all the physical evidence, take account of all witnesses' statements and have the power to subpoena key players in the events of 9/11 including former President George W Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice.
Indeed, it seems as if the City of New York may very well soon be conducting its own investigation into 9/11 as the group New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYCCAN - http://nyccan.com) has succeeded in collecting, as of 14 June 2009, 47,767 signatures of residents of New York City which asks that New York City hold a ballot within 3 months to decide whether or not an investigation into 9/11 be set up by New York City. This number exceeds the number of 45,000 that would make the holding of the ballot mandatory.
Many who question the official version of 9/11 go as far as to argue that, because of mountains of physical evidence which contradicts the official story and the fact that senior members of the Bush administration have been caught out lying and contradicting themselves, there is a prima facie case that members of the Bush administration themselves were complicit in the September 11 attacks.
People who are calling for a new investigation include:
Many more who are calling for a new investigation are listed on the web site http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Abundant solid evidence in contradiction with the official account of the 9/11 attacks can be found on many sites including http://ae911truth.org (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) and http://911truth.org
If these people are right -- and I believe they are -- then Australia's efforts to combat terrorism are not directed towards where the real terrorist threat lies.
In regard to the terrorist threat much closer to home, on 12 October 2004 former president, Abdurrahman Wahid said in an interview with SBS that he believed that either the Indonesian military or the Indonesian police planted the second larger bomb which destroyed the Sari Club. This allegation has never been properly investigated.
Before discussing the appropriateness or otherwise of the measures now in place to combat terrorism, the Human Rights consultation needs to evaluate firstly how real is that threat and secondly from what quarters the terrorist threat, if it exists, is likely to come from.
The Human Rights Consultation should therefore at least seriously look at the abundant evidence which stands in contradiction to the official accounts of terrorists atrocities in recent years and try to bring about renewed and proper investigations. Furthermore, it should give its full support to those people overseas who are seeking to bring about proper investigations into 9/11, the London Tube Bombings, the Madrid Train bombings, the Bali bombings etc.
1. ↑ My initial submission erroneously added "and
the banning of the ownership of megaphones". I had been told that Prime Minister John Howard had deemed the megaphone a 'terrorist weapon' and had outlawed them, but I could not obtain any corroboration for that statement.
2. ↑ Morgan Reyolds holds views not shared by the mainstream of the 9/11 Truth Movement and which are easy for the 'debunkers' to debunk. These include that the WTC Twin Towers were destroyed by particle beams from outer space and that the aircraft seen to fly into each of the respective WTC Twin Towers were, in fact, holograms. Many people purporting to be 9/11 Truthers promote such views in obvious attempts to discredit the 9/11 as a whole. What motivates such a high profile 9/11 Truther as Morgan Reynolds to promote views which are damaging to the 9/11 Truth Movement is unclear. Had I been aware that he held these views I would not have included his name in this list.