Of Journalists and Genocide

Of Journalists and Genocide

I just read over at blogger that the History Channel has produced a documentary on 911 truth to be aired sometime in August. The channel is owned by A&E joint venture (Hearts, Disney, NBC) and Sky News Corp.

NBC is owned by GE, “a diversified technology, manufacturing and services company, which produces transportation equipment, aircraft engines, consumer and industrial appliances, lighting, nuclear reactors, medical equipment and plastics.” I like the way they blithely throw in "nuclear reactors" alongside "medical equipment".

GE has contracts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. For example:

“GE was awarded a contract worth $5,927,870 from the U.S. Army Engineer District, Philadelphia, for "gas services." [In Afghanistan] [providing] prime power services at Bagram and Kandahar airbases.”

As most of us are aware, GE is a major component of the military industrial complex. You can read more about it here:


The forthcoming “documentary” should be an interesting (if cringe-inducing) study in propaganda. Like the BBC piece.

A British scientist and member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, John A. Blacker, is planning to sue the BBC for mass public deception via their “9/11: The Conspiracy Files” program.

This could actually be an interesting case because the program in question most certainly defied the BBC’s charter. Since the BBC is a “public” broadcasting corporation”, its shareholders are technically, well, the British public, and they have certain rights, one of which is to be told the truth. Supposedly.

Here’s an interesting email exchange on the subject which was posted over at RT’s site by Keenan:

RE: BBC lying about 9-11

Dear Mister Thompson

It has come to my attention that the BBC, earlier this year, produced and aired a 'documentary' titled, "'The Conspiracy Files" which attempted to 'refute' the claim of the 9-11 Truth Movement that the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is simply impossible because it violates well known laws of Physics, Chemistry, and Thermodynamics. I also understand that the BBC is being sued for attempting to intentionally deceive its audience regarding the truth behind the "false flag" attacks on 9-11.

While the average person in the USA and UK may be susceptible to such blatant propaganda, there is a large and growing segment of the population who have more trust in common sense and the rather simple laws of Newtonian Physics than they do in the BBC or NBC Nightly News. Those of us who have studied 9-11 with an open mind -- particularly the near free-fall collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7, with concrete pulverized to dust in mid-air, steel beams hurled hundreds of feet laterally, and steel columns poking out of the rubble cut at a 45 degree angle with thermate in the cases of WTC 1 and 2 -- know that 9-11 was not the master plan of Osam bin Laden and "19 crazed Arab highjackers"; but rather, yet another in a long history of "false flag" operations carried out by government insiders designed to terrorize their own citizens and whip up a patriot fervor that ultimately leads to war against the alleged perpetrators.

This is a very old game that can be successful only if the media goes along and doesn't challenge the obvious issues with the official account of the events. Even better still for the real perpetrators of 9-11 (see www.whodidit.org ) when the media is actively and enthusiastically involved in as a de facto Ministry of Propaganda to 'debunk' the truth, denigrate and slander those who tell the truth (ask your wily 'investigative journalist' Greg Palast what he had to say about Professor Steven Jones recently), and tell outright lies to defend the indefensible OCT.

The bottom line, Mister Thompson, is that the ruling elite who planned and perpetrated the treason, crimes, and mass-murder of 9-11 have been caught "red handed". Too many people know the truth for this to just slide quietly out of sight. If you align yourself with these people by promoting their impossible account of 9-11, you become an accomplice by attempting to cover up their terrible misdeeds. If, in fact, you don't know the truth of what really happened, your obligation is to research the events of 9-11 with an open mind, as have millions of people around the world.

What say you, sir? Will you listen to reason and air a truthful account of the many unanswered questions of 9-11 or will you continue to spew utter nonsense at your audience?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Dennis "galen" Mitrzyk
9-11 Researcher and Activist

[after a vacuous reply by the BBC]

“…This is not some kids' gameshow that is being falsified here. It is mass- murder and the BBC's repetition of lies, including the blame falsely laid on Mohammad Atta etc., helps the real murderers - those who laid the demolition charges - to evade justice. That makes the BBC an accomplice to mass-murder. Is that quite clear? We are not talking about the "balance" of its programming.

Moreover, such lies are anti-democratic. How can any vote meaningfully reflect the true feelings of a populace that has swallowed a bucket-load of lies about such critical issues as 9/11? Does the BBC's charter give it the right to destroy its host society?

Kind Regards
Peter Wakefield Sault


The gentleman who wrote the email states that the BBC are accomplishes after the fact. This is correct. But is this a legal issue, a moral issue or both? Who at the BBC is responsible? Should they be punished? If so, how?

I’m under no illusions that this lawsuit will actually shake the BBC to its foundations, or even make a dent, but I congratulate Mr. Blacker for trying. Americans wishing to sue a corporation like GE might have a more difficult problem, however.

First of all, GE is not a “public” corporation; second, in America at least, journalists don’t have to tell the truth.

There was a case outlined in the superb film “the Corporation” involving Monsanto and Fox News vs. a couple of TV news reporters named Steve Wilson and Jane Akre.

“It began when Fox fired the reporters in 1997, after they tried to air a story about the bovine growth hormone, rBGH. The report exposed its widespread use by U.S. dairy farmers, despite studies linking rGBH consumption to prostate and breast cancer. Monsanto, the producer of rBGH, threatened a lawsuit and demanded the elimination of significant, verifiable information from the story. Eventually, WTVT caved, despite Wilson and Akre’s efforts to rewrite the story more than 70 times to redress the complaints.

The couple sued Fox under Florida’s Whistle Blower’s Act. In a jury trial, Akre and Wilson were awarded $425,000. (The reporters knew not to spend it too soon.) In 2001, they were awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize for their outstanding reporting.

In an appeal, however, Fox argued that the FCC policy against distortion of news did not qualify as “law,” and that therefore Akre and Wilson were not protected under the Florida act, which only protects those reporting an employer’s violation of a “law, rule or regulation.” The court accepted this argument, ruling for WTVT.”


So there you have it. There’s actually no law requiring “journalists” to make any pretense toward telling the truth – they can knowingly lie on the airwaves or in print, present it as “truth”, and snooker the entire populace, and they can do it over and over and over again.

Are there any other legal measures that could be taken against the mediawhores? One that comes to mind is incitement to genocide.

Nazi Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels committed suicide before he had a chance to stand trial at Nuremberg, but fellow propagandist Julius Stricher was charged and condemned to death.

In explaining its decision to sentence the Nazi propagandist to death, the Judges had this to say:

“It may be that the defendant is less directly involved in the physical commission of the crimes against the Jews than some of his co-conspirators, [however] … the crime of the defendant is that he made these crimes possible. Without Streicher [and Goebbels the mastermind of the propaganda campaign], the Hitlers would have nobody to follow their order to exterminate the Jews.”

If you notice what is being said in the ruling, the same exact charges could be made against much, perhaps even the majority of the corporate media in the US.

A more recent case involved Rwanda.

“The Trial Chamber held that genocide fell within the category of crimes so serious that direct and public incitement to commit such a crime must be punished as such, even when such incitement fails to produce the result expected by the perpetrator (ICTR 1998a: para. 552).”

I recall an incident where MSNB was covering Arafat’s funeral. The guests called Arafat’s wife a “fat pig”, referred to the Palestinians as “animals” and stated that “we should just drop a bomb right there”.

This is very little different than calling Tutsis’ cockroaches, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians goes on apace.

A charge of Incitement to genocide could probably never occur in the US, of course, unless the government was overthrown or radically altered or dismantled in some manner (all good ideas Wink But let’s just say for the sake of argument that one day there will be a trial featuring Condie and Dick in orange jump suits. What about Bill O’Reilly? What about Rupert Murdoch?

To be honest, I have a difficult time with the concept of incitement. While on the one hand I certainly wouldn’t cry any tears if Bill O’Reilly was hauled away to prison for incitement, the concept becomes more difficult when we start thinking about it applied to average Joes.

Was Oliver Stone responsible when a couple of losers watched his film on acid and decided to go on a killing spree like Mickey and Mallory? The court ruled that Stone was not responsible, and I think that was the correct decision. But does that also mean that people like Sean Hannity should be left off the hook if the American people ever take their government back?

The problem I have with incitement is the same problem I have with the Manson trial. Manson did not actually commit any of the Tate murders, yet was held liable because he exerted “control” over his followers. Does this not deny the concept of free will?

Here’s another example: “incitement to riot”. Most states have this law. Let’s say I stand on a streetcorner with a bullhorn and make an impassioned speech about the tyranny of the government. Afterwards, a bunch of people go and burn down the local courthouse. Am I responsible for their actions? I would have to say no, even though the court in question (after it was rebuilt Wink would most certainly disagree.

Perhaps “accessory after the fact” is the most just way to hold these cretins accountable.

United States

The U.S. criminal code makes aiding and abetting a federal crime itself a crime[1]:

(a) Whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.

A person may be convicted of aiding and abetting any act made criminal under the code. The elements of aiding and abetting are, generally:

(1) guilty knowledge on the part of the accused ( the mens rea);
(2) the commission of an offense by someone; and
(3) the defendant assisted or participated in the commission of the offense (the actus reus).

In order to prove that, say, the producers of the upcoming History Channel documentary are accessories, it would have to be established that they had guilty knowledge of the specific act (911), yet aided in its coverup via producing a hit piece that, in turn, abetted the criminals.

Barring some secret memo, it would be almost impossible to prove that a particular mediawhore had specific knowledge of the crime. They could merely claim, for instance, that they didn’t understand the physics involved, or that they trusted the “experts” employed by the government. Indeed, they could use the same excuse as the NY times during the WMD debacle: “we weren’t vigilant enough in pursuing leads, we trusted the CIA’s experts” and so on.

Have I missed anything? This isn't a rhetorical question. Is there some other way to take these media conglomerates to task?

At the end of the day I don’t see how the Sean Hannities of the world are ever going to be held accountable. And that’s what’s so infuriating. To quote a line from the “Burbs”: “They know that we know that they know that we know!” They know the score about 911 but they’re free to lie about it to their hearts content. Without their complicity the 911 perps would already be in jail, but there is really no hope of a major media corporation “coming clean” about 911 because in order to do so it would have to self-destruct. It would have to commit suicide, and since corporations are not human (despite what the courts say about corporate “personhood”) they don’t the capacity to do so.

I shall now make my own attempt at incitement. The corporation should be killed. Any takers?