9/11 War Crimes Tribunal - Public Roles as Witnesses & Judges
The Internet and email lists, etc has paradoxically both facilitated and made more difficult the role of a Tribunal of Conscience, witnesses and Judges. In a "brick and mortar" courtroom, it is easy to tell when a Tribunal is in session; when the Tribunal is adjourned. In the case of the 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal, a Tribunal of Conscience, the issue of when the Tribunal is "in session" is more problematic to define. Judges of the 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal only speak for the Tribunal in official Notices of Decision, Indictments or other documents that are posted on the Tribunal website at www.911warcrimestribunal.org
Witnesses of the 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal - The Evidentiary Statements and Affidavits of the 9/11 witnesses are their official Tribunal-related statements.
Privileged communications such as this email also are part of official Tribunal statements.
Any other public or private statements by 9/11 Tribunal Judges and/or witnesses, whether on the media, in email lists, social media, emails, etc, are merely statements by individuals in their own private capacity exercising their right of freedom of speech, and do not reflect in any way on the 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal, its evidence, Proceedings and Judgments. This rule is made to protect Judges and witnesses, for example, from outlandish claims and statements made by organizers and specific speakers of a June 15-17, 2012 9/11 Conference in Vancouver, BC.
Judges and witnesses who feel slandered or mistreated on an email list are perfectly free to wage in on that list and deconstruct the slander in their own rights as individuals if they so wish without in any way affecting the Tribunal. They are also free to ignore these slanders, and or to bring legal action as needed.
Oct. 2, 2o12