Impeachment or Treason Trials – Treason trials are easier!
By Maher Osseiran
I am all for impeachment but I am also a realist. Impeachment has been so politicized that it lost its edge as a legal tool. Also, what is being used to back up present calls for impeachment is in the eyes of many Americans – based on polls - a necessity of the times and thereby have political implications and some wiggle room.
We do not want the impeachment process to drag and end up with the likely slap on the wrist; we want the criminals, all of them, out of office and in jail.
Is there such a crime, so clearly apolitical, so clearly in violation of the legal code that would allow a meter maid in Washington, DC, to walk into the White House and march those guys to jail? The good news/bad news is, yes it exist.
The following are the two codes that were violated and the crime associated with each will follow:
The two U.S. Codes are the following: U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115
§ 2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
And § 2382. Misprision of Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
The following is the count as I have conveyed it to five Federal Judges in the state of Connecticut:
"...,it is my duty to inform you..., of two counts of treason perpetrated by individuals high in the U.S. government. Such acts were done with premeditation.
The original crimes took place in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001; the attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, the downing of a civilian airplane respectively. There is no need to name the victims individually; there were close of 3,000 deaths not to mention the other loses. The crimes I am reporting relate to how the U.S. government dealt with the criminal responsible for the original crime.
The criminal believed to be behind the crime, even though not indicted for those specific crimes by the Federal Government, is Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda organization.
In response to the 9/11 attacks, the Federal government launched military actions against Afghanistan since its rulers, the Taleban, harbored the alleged criminal. The Taleban, by harboring Bin Laden, were determined to have aided and abetted the alleged criminal.
During those military actions in Afghanistan, more Americans and innocent Afghanis lost their lives; they could also be considered victims of the crimes I am reporting.
The crime from a Federal perspective is perfectly defined by U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2381. Treason
After close to a year of research, I can say with a high degree of accuracy that the Bush administration was the closest to apprehending Bin Laden on or around September 26, 2001, two weeks after 9/11 and ten days prior to military actions against Afghanistan and deliberately chose not to capture him.
On September 21, 2001, the Bush administration launched a sting operation, with the help of Saudi intelligence, which was originally designed to capture Bin Laden; after 9/11 the sting operation evolved into two parts.
The first part was to tape him confessing to his guilt.
The second part was to capture him.
The first part was successfully executed on September 26, 2001. The result was the grainy videotape of Bin Laden confessing at a dinner meeting to Khaled Al-Harbi and providing proof of detailed prior knowledge. My work is the closest to an authentication of that tape put forth in the public domain and the only authentication work known to exist.
Of the September 26, 2001 meeting, when the taping took place, the Bush administration had 4 days advance knowledge of the date of the meeting, 24 hours advance knowledge of the exact location of the meeting, and knew that Bin Laden would be in that village where the meeting took place for at least 3 hours if not overnight since Bin Laden's family also lived in that village.
Intelligence operatives were in the same room as Bin Laden for 3 hours on September 26, 2001 and chose only to tape him. The obvious explanation is, if they had captured him or killed him, the Bush administration could not have launched military actions against Afghanistan ten days later.
Count 1. Not capturing Bin Laden does fall under the above-mentioned statutes.
The analysis of the tape shows that an intelligence operative was left behind in that village to alert the U.S. Special Forces of when Bin Laden returned to visit with his family. It is then that the second part of the sting operation would be implemented; his capture.
Bin Laden returned the evening of November 2, 2001. The weather was freezing rain. Despite the inclement weather, two Special Forces helicopters were dispatched, a Predator drone prototype (the most sophisticated at the time in the Air Force arsenal, specifically designed to operate in bad weather), and F-14 jets circulated overhead.
Due to the bad weather, the airspace shrunk and brought the aircrafts too close to each other, while the helicopter is equipped with a collision avoidance system, the Predator drone is not. The drone collided with one of the helicopters and they both crashed.
The second helicopter rescued the crew of the first and an F-14 destroyed the crashed helicopter shortly after.
The capture mission failed.
Bin Laden is still free because of the premeditated decision to tape him instead of capturing when the Bush Administration had its best chances.
But that is not the end of it; there is another incident that qualifies as premeditated treason.
Count 2. Since Bin Laden is still free, the videotape resulting from the first part of the sting operation can be described as a sensitive by-product of a failed intelligence operation that was designed, in its totality, to capture him.
Buckling under pressure from the Muslim and Arab streets for proof that Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11, the Bush administration released the only evidence it had of his guilt. The White House and the Pentagon tell us that there was ample deliberation, indicating a premeditated act, of the consequences of its release; the videotape was released on December 13, 2001.
The one major consequence they don't want anyone to know about is how Bin Laden would react when viewing the tape. Inevitably, Bin Laden was to see that tape and he would quickly realize that it was taped covertly. He would realize how close intelligence operatives were to him; basically they could have captured him.
The only time Bin Laden took exception to his own security rules in meeting visitors – he went to this visitor in accommodation to the visitor's handicap (paraplegic) while other visitors were always brought to him under a strict security protocol – he gets taped covertly confessing by intelligence operatives.
The very serious consequence of releasing the tape is that security around Bin Laden will get even tighter and no one would ever get close to Bin Laden again regardless of how honest the effort is by this administration or any future one.
The most wanted man in America is still free as a result of deliberate and premeditated acts by the Bush administration and the second of which insured that he would never be caught.
All material used to uncover these crimes is in the public domain, the majority of which is inadvertently provided by the Pentagon. Any investigation or prosecution would confirm the allegation and yield more counts.
I have shared my research material, as it was developing, with Patrick Fitzgerald over a period of six months until the final version of the article was written. I believe that the material ended up in a sealed investigative file at the DoJ.
A Freedom of Information Act to the FBI revealed that all material relating to the authentication of the videotape in question is in such a sealed file and could not be released.
If such an investigation were launched the day the tape aired on December 13, 2001, such an investigation, if serious, would have concluded by now.
The DoJ has not indicted Bin Laden for the original crime, the 9/11 attacks, since the only evidence they have of his involvement is the videotape in question. Any authentication work on that videotape, prior to providing it as evidence to a Grand Jury, would reveal the acts of treason by elements in the Bush administration.
Other individuals who have received this material are the Attorneys General of the States of CT, NJ, and NY. I have received acknowledgment from the AG of the state of CT who referred me to a U.S. Attorney in Bridgeport, CT but did not directly take it upon himself to refer the matter to such attorney.
Others who have received the material are the Judiciary Committees in both House and Senate and members of the media.
The lack of action on their part, especially on the part of those who are sworn to uphold and protect the constitution falls under U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2382. Misprision of Treason. A list of those who have received the information can be made available upon request.
You might be surprised as to who was informed in congress; when I say informed, I mean the material was sent to their personal email or spent a considerable amount of time discussing the crimes with their Sr. aids. The following are names you might recognize: Christopher Shays, Dennis Kucinich, Jerrold Nadler, Ron Paul.
I have to say that Nadler's office was the most responsive until two weeks ago; that is when it turned into what I call a black hole.
In my last communication by email, November 29, 2007 with Nadler's office I say:
"What I told you two days ago might become a reality sooner or later.
Right now Bin Laden is in Charge.
The following is an AFP report from The Daily Star in Beirut
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=87134
"The US "insisted on invading" Afghanistan even though it knew that the Afghans were not behind the 2001 attacks"
When do you think he would spell it all out and say what I am saying in my articles?
He would if his back is to the wall and feels that he is about to be captured, or, he would wait until it does the most damage; maybe when Mosharraf goes after the tribal regions with the help of U.S. military advisors.
Bin Laden is in charge but it is also a symbiotic relationship between him and the neocons.
We need to get it out, control it, safeguard our own constitution and country. We cannot keep behaving like the sheep led to the slaughter house and all we can say is BAHHHHHH."
The crimes are very serious and the implications unimaginable; no wonder when asked to act, everyone turns into a black hole.
The crimes are so serious, and apolitical enough, that if made public, the White House would empty fairly quickly with no need for trials, but mainstream media does not want to get involved either, and believe me, I have spent tons of time talking to editors. Don't ask me which outlet I spoke with, it is easier to name the outlets I did not speak to.
Since this is an action item, what can you do to help? All that you could do. As to me, one option left, hang from a bungy cord from a bridge over I-95.
Authors Bio: Maher Osseiran is a freelance investigative journalist and geopolitical analyst specializing in the Middle East. Maher uses his engineering and scientific research background as primary tools in his investigative work. His life experiences and intimate knowledge of the Middle East and its culture has allowed him to write very accurate analysis ahead of many mainstream media outlets. His articles can be read on www.mydemocracy.net