Iranian Spying? or Neocon 9/11 Coverup?
Questioning the USG/NYT official story on Marzieh Hashemi, Monica Witt, New Horizon…and yours truly
Monica E. Witt, a former United States Air Force intelligence officer, is accused of espionage on behalf of Iran. Credit: FBI/EPA, via Shutterstock/New York Times
By Kevin Barrett • Unz Review • February 18, 2019
It wasn’t the first time I’ve been prominently libeled in The New York Times. Nor was it the worst.
Compared to Stanley Fish’s grotesquely mendacious 2006 op-ed trashing me for something I never did—advocating 9/11 truth in the classroom—Alan Blinder, Julie Turkewitz and Adam Goldman treated me fairly well on Sunday’s NYT front page by calling me a “controversial scholar of Islam” while accurately reporting what I said about Monica Witt, the ex-Air Force officer accused of spying for Iran.
The arguably libelous part came in the previous paragraph. I was introduced as part of “a crowd filled with fringe academics, Holocaust deniers and the lover of the terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal” where “Ms. Witt at last found herself among people as critical of her country as she was.” This is an absurdly libelous description of attendees at the February 2013 Hollywoodism Conference, a rubric of the Tehran Film Festival that was not a New Horizon conference. Leaving aside the question of how a whole conference could be “filled by… the lover of the terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal” (Carlos liked really big women?) the bit about America-hating “fringe academics” and “Holocaust deniers” is seriously misleading.
Most of the US attendees might better be described as sincere American patriots. Former Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska), whom I personally recruited for the conference, is widely acknowledged as an all-American hero for his principled stance against the Vietnam war, his role in exposing the Pentagon Papers, and his courageous advocacy of 9/11 truth. Merlin Miller, a family values oriented filmmaker who once ran for president, is another all-American hero who attended the Hollywoodism Conference. Merlin Miller’s pro-American, anti-Zionist-Hollywood perspective is as patriotic as it gets. And then there was Culture Wars editor E. Michael Jones, another conservative American patriot who wants to take his country back. While all three all-American heroes are in varying degrees critical of Israel and its occupation of American politics and media, none could possibly be viewed as America haters.
The bit about “Holocaust denial” is also misleading. The Holocaust was not on the agenda, in any way, shape, or form, at the Hollywoodism conference, nor at any New Horizon Conference. The New York Times apparently chose to lob this gratuitous insult because a tiny handful of the hundreds of attendees at New Horizon conferences have published on this issue—an issue that in any event merits fearless discussion and debate, as readers of Ron Unz’s “Holocaust Denial” will discover.
The New York Times, echoing the US government’s indictment of Monica Witt and the Treasury Department’s sanctioning of New Horizon, offers a narrative almost entirely unsupported by any evidence. According to the official narrative, New Horizon and Press TV anchor Marzieh Hashemi are somehow responsible for Monica Witt’s decision to move to Iran and allegedly share secrets she learned in the Air Force. Leaving aside the questions of whether Monica Witt actually did move to Iran, and if so whether she shared any secrets, and if so whether those secrets were genuinely important, the cases against New Horizon and Marzieh Hashemi are obviously bogus.
First consider the case against Ms. Hashemi, a leading international news anchor, who was kidnapped by the FBI without charges and held for ten days under circumstances bordering on torture. The rationale for kidnapping Ms. Hashemi was the claim that she was a “material witness” to Monica Witt’s alleged spying. But Ms. Hashemi was never charged with a crime. After several interrogations, she was released without charges. Yet the indictment of Monica Witt states that “Individual A” who can only be Ms. Hashemi “engaged in acts consistent with serving as a spotter and assessor on behalf of the Iranian intelligence services.” Obviously if there were any actual evidence that Marzieh Hashemi was so employed, she never would have been released without charges. So we may assume that “acts consistent with” really means: “Marzieh Hashemi is a journalist who reports critically and fearlessly on American issues, and in so doing interviews sources who might be characterized as whistleblowers or dissidents.” In other words, Hashemi regularly commits a crime called “journalism.” And just as journalist Glen Greenwald, in the course of his journalistic duties, interviewed a whistleblower who wound up living in Russia (Edward Snowden) it seems that Marzieh Hashemi may have interviewed a whistleblower who wound up living in Iran (Monica Witt). But, contra USG, neither Greenwald nor Hashemi are spies. Both are journalists who, unlike certain mainstream media hacks, actually do their jobs.
The case against the New Horizon NGO is as bogus as the one against Marzieh Hashemi. The only “evidence” against New Horizon is that Monica Witt spoke at the February 2013 Hollywoodism Conference in Tehran. But that was not even a New Horizon conference! It was actually part of the Tehran Film Festival. So if the Treasury Department thinks the Hollywoodism Conference was guilty of something, it should sanction the Tehran Film Festival, not the New Horizon NGO, which only had a peripheral role in that event.
But why blame the conference at all? The official narrative seems to be that Witt had such a wonderful time there that she later decided to move to Iran (and supposedly spill some secrets). If that were true—and I can testify that just about everybody who attends Iran-based conferences has a wonderful time—the conference organizers would be guilty of the crime of putting on a wonderful conference. Last I checked, that wasn’t grounds for Treasury Department sanctions.
Is there any evidence that New Horizon conferences are really about recruiting spies, not exchanging ideas? The notion is preposterous. Just look at the participants lists! Virtually none of the conferees are people who could be expected to hold any secrets. On the contrary, the many New Horizon conferences I have attended have been—up until May 2018—remarkably bereft of US military and intelligence veterans.
I know the New Horizon organizers fairly well, and even helped them on more than one occasion by suggesting prospective guests. When I repeatedly suggested that they invite such illustrious ex-military/intel types as Veterans Today Senior Editor Gordon Duff, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, ex-State Department issuer of Visas for al-Qaeda Mike Springmann, former US Army counterterrorism and psy ops expert Scott Bennett, and others from USG backgrounds, I was told that while the New Horizon NGO would love to do so, the Iranian government makes it hard for such people to get visas. Finally, in May 2018, in an attempt to foster goodwill and trust, the Iranian government relented. Giraldi, Springmann, Bennett, and Michael Maloof were invited and attended. On the final day of that Conference, Bennett and others spearheaded an attempt to convince the Iranian government to bring 9/11 truth into an American federal courtroom.
I believe the real reason for the witch hunt against New Horizon and Marzieh Hashemi is New Horizon’s and Press TV’s success at fostering dialogues that include voices that are suppressed and censored in the US and the rest of the West. The 9/11 truth movement, in particular, obviously terrifies the Establishment. When the May 2018 New Horizon conference in Mashhad nearly persuaded the Iranian government to throw its full support behind a major 9/11 truth initiative—one that could have led to discovery proceedings forcing suspected 9/11 perpetrators like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and others to testify under oath— the neoconservative element of the Establishment must have panicked. The current witch-hunt is their way of lashing out.
Think about it: If this is really about Monica Witt supposedly spilling secrets, why did they wait so long? According to the feds, Witt, supposedly possessing vital national security secrets, has been living in Iran as a Shia Muslim convert since summer 2013. Since Witt was on US authorities’ radar screen as a dissident and potential whistleblower long before that, it seems obvious that damage limitation measures would have been taken by mid-2013 at the latest. Any operations Witt could have compromised would have been shut down or revamped at that time, if not earlier. So the narrative that Witt has gravely damaged US national security, and we are only hearing about it now, seems implausible. Instead, the timing of the indictment, and the simultaneous persecution of Marzieh Hashemi and sanctioning of New Horizon, suggests that the neocon Deep State is panicking over Press TV’s and New Horizon’s success at fostering dialogue on suppressed issues like 9/11 truth—dialogue inclusive of loyal and patriotic US military and intelligence insiders. Presumably the neocon Deep State has invented a fake or exaggerated tale of Monica Witt’s alleged spying as an excuse to try to persecute and silence truth-loving journalists and intellectuals.
But let’s consider all the possibilities. In the unlikely event that Monica Witt really has spilled important national security secrets to Iranian intelligence—this according to the neocon Deep State tale that the entire mainstream media has swallowed uncritically—who would really deserve the blame? Journalists who covered her whistleblowing? Conference organizers who offered her a completely transparent platform? That’s the propaganda line. But it’s preposterous.
Anyone who has spoken extensively with Monica Witt, as I did at the Hollywoodism conference in 2013, knows that she is a highly intelligent, deeply sincere person who was horrified and traumatized by the war crimes in which she was forced to participate. Today’s New York Times article cites her classmate Cory Ellis:
“‘She would talk about how she couldn’t sleep at night, the stuff she saw and was a part of,’ said Mr. Ellis. Ms. Witt, he remembered, would mention drone strikes, extrajudicial killings and atrocities against children, all of which she claimed her colleagues in the military would brag about.”
As a whistleblower, she testified about some of these atrocities to journalists, including Marzieh Hashemi, and apparently also approached Wikileaks. And of course she participated in the Hollywoodism Conference in Tehran.
So who is really at fault here? The journalists? The conference? (Kill the messengers!) Or the war criminals who rape and dismember children, massacre women and children in drone strikes, and engage in sexual assault against their fellow service members with impunity?
If the US government wants to prosecute the people responsible for Monica Witt’s decision to move to Iran, they should begin by investigating the US military personnel who committed the atrocities she witnessed—the atrocities that traumatized her and forced her to follow her conscience, wherever it may have led her.
 I was witch-hunted in 2006 by State Rep. Steve Nass for “teaching 9/11 conspiracy theories” at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. But in fact I had never done so, nor had I any plans to do so. While teaching African Studies, Folklore, and Religious Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2001 and 2006, I had never once revealed to students my personal views of 9/11, nor did I ever discuss the research that gave rise to those views. None of my students up to that point even knew what my views of 9/11 were, unless they had stumbled upon one of my occasional teach-ins, or read my published work on the issue, which I did not bring into the classroom. Yet Stanley Fish lied brazenly about me in his NYT op-ed, libelously claiming: “Mr. Barrett, who has a one-semester contract to teach a course titled ‘Islam: Religion and Culture’ acknowledged on a radio talk show that he has shared with students his strong conviction that the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job perpetrated by the American government.” In fact I neither acknowledged nor did any such thing. I immediately wrote to The New York Times urging them to correct their libelous error. They refused to do so. Instead, they published several other letters all taking for granted Fish’s outrageous and utterly baseless lie.
 New Horizon is an Iranian NGO dedicated to fostering intellectual exchange among genuinely independent thinkers and activists from all over the world. It has sponsored on average one conference each year, mostly in Tehran, since around 2012.
 The New Horizon NGO had nothing to do with the December 2006 Holocaust Conference in Tehran—a conference whose primary purpose was to defend human rights by challenging the West’s annihilation of free speech and free thought on this important topic.
9/11 truth leaders’ letter to Iran
Dear Iran: Please appeal—then annihilate the Official Conspiracy Theory in court!
Kevin Barrett -
May 24, 2018
On Monday, April 30, Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District Court of New York ordered Iran to pay more than $6 billion to 9/11 victims. Thus far Iran has refused to acknowledge the court proceeding on the grounds that the whole world knows it is transparently ridiculous political propaganda with no legal or factual basis. But what if Iran chose to defend itself by presenting proof—in court—that the whole Official Conspiracy Theory is false? That is the suggestion of (originally) fifteen (now 81 and counting) prominent critics of the official story who have signed a letter asking Iran to consider appealing the case and mounting a vigorous 9/11 truth based defense. Below is the letter, which is already being publicized by the Iranian mass media, and will be taken up this weekend by the National Security Council of the Iranian Parliament.
–Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor
May 24, 2018
To the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamic Republic of Iran
We are writing to urge the Islamic Republic of Iran to immediately appeal the Southern District Court of New York’s ruling ordering Iran to pay more than six billion dollars of reparations for the 2001 terrorist attacks. Please note that the appeal must be filed by Wednesday, May 28, so this is an extremely urgent matter.
We are willing and ready to provide court testimony in support of Iran’s innocence. The extremely weak case against Iran is predicated on the 9/11 Commission’s version of events, according to which 19 alleged hijackers (15 of whom were Saudis, and none of whom were Iranians) precipitated a series of miracles including gross violations of the laws of physics. We can prove absolutely, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this version of events is false, thereby nullifying the case against Iran.
We believe that by strongly contesting this matter in a US court, Iran can win a major media victory over its enemies, and will likely win the legal case as well. For while US courts can be corrupt, they follow procedural rules, and create legal records, that will in this case make it very difficult for the anti-Iran forces to achieve their objectives.
The alternative—not contesting the judgment—hands the anti-Iran forces a victory that they do not deserve. For although they have no valid evidence against Iran, if Iran fails to defend itself, it appears to be admitting guilt.
Strong peer-reviewed evidence useful to a court defense resides on the websites of three research organizations.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth https://www.AE911Truth.org
Consensus 9/11 http://www.consensus911.org
Scientists for 9/11 Truth http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org
The leaders of these organizations could possibly be reached for consultation through myself at Kevin@mujca.org.
We urge the government of Iran to contact Mr. Mick Harrison Esq. of the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry who, in his capacity as a private attorney, may be able to help the Islamic Republic of Iran take the initial steps toward assembling a legal team to appeal Judge Daniels’ ruling in advance of the May 28 deadline:
Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
(which on April 10 filed a 54-page petition for a grand jury investigation of 9/11 with the U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of New York.)
Thank you, and we look forward to hearing from you.
1. Prof. David Ray Griffin, Professor Emeritus, Claremont School of Theology; author of 13 books on 9/11 (USA)
2. Prof. Richard Falk, Professor of International Law, Emeritus, Princeton University (USA)
3. Dr. Cynthia McKinney, six-term congresswoman (D-GA) and Green Party candidate for President of the United States (2008) (USA)
4. Prof. Graeme MacQueen, Associate Professor of Religious Studies (retired), McMaster University; former Director of McMaster’s Centre for Peace Studies and author of numerous articles on 9/11. (Canada)
5. Prof. Mark Crispin Miller, Professor of Culture and Communication, New York University (USA)
6. Dr. John Roberts (UK)
7. Prof. Niels Harrit, chemist, former Professor at University of Copenhagen, He presents evidence that the dust of the buildings contained the explosive nano thermite (Denmark)
8. Carol Brouillet, Founder of Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance
9. Prof. Oliver Boyd-Barrett, Professor Emeritus of Journalism, Bowling Green State University (Ireland)
10. Prof. Anthony J. Hall, 911 turther, Professor of Globalization Studies, University of Lethbridge (Canada)
11. Christopher Bollyn, investigative journalist and author of Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World and The War on Terror: The Plot to Rule the Middle East.
12. Jimmy Walter, venture capitalist and author & best known for sponsoring advertisements asking to reopen the investigation 911 & offering financial rewards to anyone that could prove the World Trade Center was destroyed without the use of explosives. (USA)
13. Tony Szamboti, ME, former Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems mechanical design engineer (USA)
14. Dr. Ibrahim Soudy, PE, SE, PEng, Structural Engineer (USA)
15. Ian Henshall, author, 911 The New Evidence (UK)
16. Sander Hicks, Candidate for US Congress, author of The Big Wedding: 9/11, the Whistle-blowers, and the Cover-up (USA)
17. Michael Santangelo, Co-Facilitator for Truth Action Project, New York City (USA)
18. Dr. Kevin Barrett, Former professor at Wisconsin University, Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for Truth; author of Questioning the War on Terror (USA)
19. Dieudonné, Worldwide known Comedian, author of performance on 911 “la fine équipe du 11”
20. Giulietto Chiesa, Politician, former European Parliament member, director of Zero: an Investigation Into 9/11 (Italy)
21. Gerhard Wisnewski, author of the first critical television documentary on 911, in a large worldwide broadcast. Author of “9/11 Operation: Attack on the globe”; “9/11 Myth: Tracking the truth, New revelations” (German)
22. Prof. Rudy List, former professor at University of Birmingham, member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth (USA)
23. Art Olivier, Former Mayor of Bellflower, California, producer of “Operation Terror”
24. Prof. Hamid Algar, Professor Emeritus of Persian and Islamic Studies, University of California, Berkeley (USA)
25. Prof. Atif Kubursi, Emeritus Professor of Economics McMaster University
26. Dr. Philip Giraldi, former CIA military intelligence officer & counter-terrorism specialist (USA)
27. Wayne Madsen, former NSA officer, former head of Naval Sound Surveillance System in US Navy, investigative Journalist, author specializing in intelligence (USA)
28. Dr. Scott Bennett, former army psychological warfare-counterterrorism officer, former State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism (USA)
29. Michael Maloof, former senior security analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (USA)
30. Scott Rickard, former intelligence officer for the USAF, the NSA, and the Directorate of National Intelligence (DNI) (USA)
31. Ken O’Keefe, former Marine and Gulf War veteran (USA – Ireland)
32. Colonel Alain Corvez, former advisor of French minister of defense (France)
33. Richard Labévière, former navy operational reserve officer, former editor-in-chief of Télévision Suisse Romande (TSR) and Radio France Internationale (RFI), author (France)
34. Jürgen Cain Külbel, former criminal police (Germany)
35. Tamás Samu, former MP (Hungary)
36. François Ferrier, former Marine officer, ex-regional advisor of Lorraine (France)
37. Frank Creyelman Honorary MP (Flemish Parlament) / Former Chairman committee on Foreign policy, European affairs and International cooperation, Former senator in Belgium Parliament (Belgium)
38. Dr. Christian Bouchet, politician (France)
39. Christopher Black, international criminal lawyer, member of the Law Society of Upper Canada)
40. Edward C. Corrigan, Certified Specialist by the Law Society of Upper Canada in both Citizenship & Immigration and Refugee Protection Law (Canada)
41. Isabelle Coutant Peyre, lawyer (France)
42. Prof. Kaukab Siddique, Lincoln University professor, Muslim Leader (USA)
43. Prof. Matthew Crosston, Professor of Global Security and Strategic Intelligence, American Military University (USA)
44. Prof. Claudio Mutti, former professor at University of Bologna, editor of the journal “Eurasia” (Italy)
45. Greta Berlin, Co-Founder, the Free Gaza movement (USA)
46. Dr. Paul Larudee, Former Fulbright-Bays Lecturer (USA)
47. Vanessa Beeley – peace activist and independent journalist (USA – France)
48. Joaquin Flores, Editor in Chief of Fort Russ News, Director & Analyst at Center for Syncretic Studies (USA)
49. Gearóid Ó Colmáin, Geopolitical analyst, Media commentator (Ireland)
50. Mark Dankof, reverend, political analyst (USA)
51. Dr. E. Michael Jones, former professor at Saint Mary’s College (Notre Dame, Indiana), editor of Culture Wars magazine (USA)
52. Jim W. Dean, Managing Editor, VeteransToday.com (USA)
53. Imam Muhammad Asi, Muslim Leader, former Imam of Islamic Center of Washington (USA)
54. Prof. Alexander Dugin, philosopher, political analyst and strategist (Russia)
55. Andre Vltchek, philosopher, author, filmmaker and investigative journalist (Russia)
56. Dr. Maria Poumier, former professor at Sorbonne University, author & researcher (France)
57. Dr. Stephen Sizer, former vicar of the Anglican parish of Christ Church (Virginia Water, Surrey), author of Christian Zionism – Road Map to Armageddon? (UK)
58. Konrad Rekas, journalist and senior member of “Polish Yes for Scotland Association” (Scotland)
59. Pepe Escobar, Asia Times correspondent (Brazil)
60. Lauren Booth, journalist and broadcaster (UK)
61. Jean Michel Vernochet, geopolitical analyst, former journalist editor at Figaro Magazine (France)
62. David Lawley Wakelin, Documentary film maker (UK)
63. Dragana Trifkovic, Director of the Center for Geostrategic Studies (Serbia)
64. Leslie Varenne, President of IVERIS institute of strategic studies (France)
65. Lucien Cerise, author of “Governing through Chaos – Social Engineering and Globalization” (France)
66. Hafsa Kara-Mustapha, Journalist & Political Analyst (UK)
67. Jacob Cohen, Author and Researcher (France)
68. Gilles Munier, author and investigative journalist (France)
69. Max Igan, Lecturer, Political Analyst, Radio Presenter (Australia)
70. Marwa Osman, University Lecturer and freelance journalist (Lebanon)
71. Zeina Mohanna, human rights activists, author and international event organizer (Lebanon)
72. Dogan Bermek, Muslim Leader (Turkey)
73. Tesha Teshanovic, editor in chief of “Balkan Info” (Serbia)
74. Eric Walberg, author and commentator (Canada)
75. Peter Koenig, Economist, Geopolitical analyst, (Geneva)
76. Yvan Benedetti, president of l’OEuvre française (France)
77. Ladislav Zemanek, scholar, political activist (Czech)
78. Michael Opperskalski, Journalist, Editor & International Consultant (Germany)
79. Stefano Bonilauri, Editor in chief of Anteo Edizioni (Italy)
80. Navid Nasr, Research fellow, Center for Syncretic Studies (USA)
81. William H. Warrick III MD (Retired), Veterans For Peace, Chapter #01 Auburn, Maine
The Iran Project: Activist: Iran already exonerated of role in 9-11 attacks, Docs display Israel’s complicity
Letter from the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
THE LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE
FOR 9/11 INQUIRY, INC.
a 501(c)(3) charitable organization
426 River Mill Road
Jersey Shore, PA 17740 firstname.lastname@example.org www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.lcfor911.org
Kevin Barrett VIA E-MAIL
June 22, 2018
As you know, the Lawyers’ Committee Board met on May 23, 2018 and discussed and voted on whether the Lawyers’ Committee as an organization could appropriately sign on to a letter to the government of Iran such as you had drafted and have now delivered (directly or indirectly). In the end we decided that as a non-profit lawyers’ organization it would not be appropriate for the Lawyers’ Committee to sign a letter to Iran regarding potential litigation such as Iran’s upcoming appeal deadline on the default judgment. The Board directed me to provide you this detailed explanation of our position for posting on your web pages/sites with your original Iran letter.
We understand that your goal is to facilitate a presentation to the American public (and the world) of evidence as to what really happened on 9/11, and that you believe that the Iran litigation may provide an appropriate forum for that evidence to be presented in a possible public federal court proceeding as a legitimate part of Iran’s defense. While the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc. is primarily a lawyers’ organization whose mission is to promote transparency and accountability regarding 9/11 and, consequently, we are certainly not opposed to evidence being presented in a federal court proceeding regarding what really transpired on 9/11 and leading up to 9/11, we are not currently set up to litigate on behalf of other parties. Even if we were, we would have to comply with the rules of conduct for attorneys which substantially restrict attorneys from soliciting potential clients. In addition, attorneys cannot provide a recommendation for a client or potential client to take a particular legal action, including the filing of an appeal, without first evaluating the merits of that action which would include a review of the entire case file and applicable law, which in the instant case we have not done.
For these reasons, we, as an organization, cannot sign on to a letter requesting or recommending that Iran file an appeal of the default judgment that was recently entered against Iran, nor can we offer legal assistance, advice, or representation to Iran or any other nation, state, corporation, group, or individual party. Of course, the evidence we have developed in support of the Petition to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York that we recently filed is publicly available on our web site www.lcfor911.org and could be used by any party in any litigation to the extent that it was relevant.
The decisions and limitations on actions reflected in this letter are decisions and limitations on actions of the Lawyers’ Committee and do not necessarily imply that individual attorneys, scientists, or investigators involved with the Lawyers’ Committee or on our Board would be similarly restricted in their individual and private capacities should they be asked and agree to provide legal assistance to any nation, state, corporation, group, or individual. Any such requests would have to be evaluated and decided on a case by case basis by the person(s) requested to provide such assistance, with prior consultation with and approval by the Lawyers’ Committee if needed and appropriate with regard to potential conflicts of interest.
However, the Lawyers’ Committee Board of Directors has adopted a policy intended to maintain the independence and objectivity of the Lawyers’ Committee in pursuing our 9/11 related public interest investigations and our goals of 9/11 transparency and accountability. That policy requires any Lawyers’ Committee Board Member, attorney, or staff member to timely disclose to the Board any request for legal or other assistance from any party who has been officially charged with or might reasonably be perceived to have culpability in any 9/11 related crimes, and if the Lawyers’ Committee Board Member, attorney, or staff member decides to provide such assistance to such party, then, in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of the Lawyers’ Committee, that Board Member, attorney, or staff member would be required to resign from any role with the Lawyers’ Committee.
The Lawyers’ Committee has not made any determinations regarding Iran’s, or any other nation or government’s, potential criminal culpability or civil liability, and our 9/11 related investigations have not been completed. The above mentioned policy adopted by the Board, however, would not preclude the Lawyers’ Committee, in an appropriate case or cases where the public interest would be served thereby, acting in the role of a friend of the court (amicus curiae) or as an intervening party in a 9/11 related litigation. The Lawyers’ Committee of course reserves its options to bring civil litigation on its own behalf to foster our own non-profit mission.
Mick Harrison, Attorney at Law
Executive Director, Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc.
Jane A. Clark, Esq., Chair – Mick G. Harrison, Esq. – David Meiswinkle, Esq. – William Jacoby, Esq. Julio C. Gomez, Esq. – Michael Springmann, Esq. – Ed Asner – David Cole – Barb Honegger