Although I do not agree with Scott Fenstermaker on all the issues we've discussed here, I do not doubt his integrity.
I am shocked that is he simply unaware of all the evidence available online that disproves the official story of 9/11. As we wrangled over the 9/11 truth issue in Part IV, I was not convinced that he was telling us the whole story. And I couldn't believe that he would opt for a "justification" defense, where his client pleads not guilty, then uses the trial to denigrate U.S. Foreign policy.
During our e-mail conversations, I told Mr. Fenstermaker that I was disappointed in our discourse about 9/11 truth. There was one more question I wanted to ask him, but we had moved on to other topics, and Part IV was already posted. My last question about 9/11 truth, and his answer, are posted below.
If there is one statement in these interviews that answers the question: Who is Scott Fenstermaker? It is his reply to the following:
TP: This is what I cannot understand. You flew down to Guantanamo Bay in late November, and discussed legal strategy with Mr. al-Baluchi. You were both aware of allegations that 9/11 was an inside job.
Yet you, or your client, decided on this "justification" defense. Where Mr. al-Baluchi will plead not guilty, then say he took part in this crime because the United States is a bad country. I think this is a tragedy not just for the detainees, but for all of us.
The Obama administration has the nerve, the gall, to put on this show. While millions of Americans and people throughout the world are aware that 9/11 is a lie. Not only would the 9/11 truth defense have a much better chance of winning freedom for the detainees, but this government would finally have to confront the truth in court.
So my question is this: Why did you, or Mr. al-Baluchi, decide that this "justification" defense is in your client's best interests, when you at least knew of allegations that 9/11 was an inside job?
SF: I do not think Mr. al-Baluchi thinks that the United States is a bad country, as you seem to claim, although the fear bureaucracy in our country would have us believe that he does. In fact, I think he quite likes the United States from what I can tell. He does, however, think our policies are problematic. While this may not seem like much of a difference, it is an important one. He understands that Americans have lost control of their government, much the way that the Germans lost control of theirs. While we haven't yet gotten to 1939 Germany, we are in 1934 and counting. The soldiers stationed in Grand Central Station with M-16s for the past eight years are evidence of that. Are those soldiers stationed in Grand Central to protect us, or to protect others from us? September 11th was to America what the fire at the Bundestag was in Germany. Those who attacked us understood that very well on September 10th.
I do not know who thinks 9/11 is a "lie," whatever that means. 9/11 certainly happened, and Mr. al-Baluchi is readily willing to take responsibility for it. You seem to think that "9/11 Truth" will absolve Mr. al-Baluchi, but I don't agree with you. As I understand the 9/11 Truth movement, their beliefs would merely add additional codefendants to Mr. al-Baluchi's case by way of superseding indictments, but would do absolutely nothing to get him off of the hook for criminal culpability. If you rob a bank and are held solely responsible, you would still be responsible if you had had an accomplice (or 50) who was (were) also criminally liable.
I do not think it is appropriate for you to claim that you know what is in Mr. al-Baluchi's best interests. You don't know him, have never spoken with him, and are completely unaware of his goals and aspirations. To suggest otherwise is transparently self-serving. You merely want "9/11 Truth" views aired at his trial. If that's what you want, take an ad out in the paper, or make web postings. You should not presume to know what is in Mr. al-Baluchi's best interests. Mr. al-Baluchi will accomplish more by being convicted and being put to death than he ever could by being acquitted and freed. Where would the world be now had Jesus been acquitted by the Sanhedrin or otherwise been spared from the cross?
...
