Jon Gold
2/23/2009

President Barack Obama has been in office for one month. Prior to his coming into office, we heard that he will change the direction of this country. That he will get us back on the right track. It’s still too early to tell whether or not he will live up to the hype. However, it’s not too early to see if he is off to a good start.

As of right now, here is what I perceive to be the good that he has done. He asked the military leadership to “engage in additional planning necessary to execute a responsible military drawdown from Iraq.” He freed years of Bush records. He “signed new measures to spur development of fuel efficient cars and to wean America off foreign energy.” He ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Finally, the 9/11 Families were given a meeting with Obama to discuss GITMO (something the Bush Administration wasn’t willing to do).

Now for the bad. He kept a lot of Bush’s war team (and did let some go). He continued Bush’s practice of bombing Pakistan with drones, and now is expanding that mission. Depending on who you talk to, he preserved the “Rendition” program. He went to a party that Donald Rumsfeld and Henry Kissinger attended (that just irked me). Apparently, he sought a delay in having Rove testify. He is sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan (Sen. Fritz Hollings wrote an interesting article about Afghanistan). He will “continue Bush Administration policy with regard to detainees held at a US airbase in Afghanistan, saying they have no right to challenge their detentions in US courts — and denying them legal status altogether.” He is “trying to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House (Bush) e-mails.” Finally, he used the 9/11 Families, and his meeting with them as part of the justification for sending more troops to Afghanistan (something the Bush Administration WAS willing to do, and did so often). As far as I’m concerned, Obama is not allowed to use 9/11 for anything.

I don’t see many indications that “change” has indeed come. It is still early, and only time will tell. However, in my opinion, it does not look good.

Jon Gold
2/22/2009

I see a lot speculation on the internet as to who I am, and why it is I do what I do. I’ve seen the idea that I work in a movie theater. I’ve seen the idea that I live in my mother’s basement.

The truth is, I’m an American. My name is Jon Gold. I was born in Philadelphia in 1972. I am 36 years old. I’m a graphic designer and a web developer for a small company. I play the drums, I have a cat named after my Grandmother, I like comic books, I like music, I like movies, I like boating, I like eating out, I find things like Egypt (other ancient ruins), and history interesting, I live in an apartment, and I drive a reasonably nice car.

I was never political prior to 9/11. I had never even voted. After 9/11, I was glued to the TV set because I had to know what was going on. Unfortunately, I picked Fox News as my news source. I thought that the media would never lie. Not in this country, that’s just unheard of. For a time, I had “right wing” thoughts. I remember going to a march in Washington D.C. in early 2003 making the argument that Saddam was a bad man, and we should take him out (a la Fox News). I thought that carpet bombing the Middle East was necessary. It wasn’t until I saw over time that the Bush Administration was making it difficult to find out what happened that day, did I start to question things. I’ve mentioned a few things in the past. Cheney and Bush going to Tom Daschle and asking him to “limit the scope” of the investigation (depending on who you talk to, they may have asked him not to investigate the attacks at all). The release of the August 6th, PDB infuriated me. To think that Bush would have lied about any aspect of that day made me angry. The families rally in Washington D.C. I couldn’t then, and I can’t today understand why family members would have to fight for an investigation, and why someone like the President of the United States wouldn’t want to know anything and everything about that horrible event so as to make sure it could never happen again.

Once I saw that the Bush Administration was covering up different aspects of 9/11, I started to read stories on sites like alternet.org, and truthout. I stumbled across an article called, “An Interesting Day” by Paul Thompson and Allan Wood. A good friend of mine and I went back and forth with regards to the information that was in that article, and neither of us could believe our eyes. I spent a good year and a half reading articles about things like the Iran Contra Affair, Daniel Pearl, and Sibel Edmonds. I read a book entitled, “The Emperor Wears No Clothes” by Jack Herer after my friend showed me this article. The greatest man I ever knew, my Grandfather, passed away from Pancreatic cancer. When I heard that there may have been something out there that could have helped him, I became furious. It drove me to start contacting my representatives, and asking them to look into Dr. Guzman’s research. I also started asking them about 9/11. Every time I would find an article, or gather a collection of articles, I would send it to my Reps, and each time, I would get a form letter in return. I would contact the media and beg them to cover this story, or that story, and they never would, and still don’t today.

By the time June 2004 came around, I was addicted to C-SPAN. I would watch every session, and special I could. I used to stay up late to watch the 9/11 Commission hearings re-broadcasted. By chance, I stumbled across one of 9/11 CitizensWatch.org’s press conferences. It was the first time I had seen other people question the official account (the media weren’t doing their jobs surprise surprise). Immediately, I contacted Kyle Hence, and asked him if there was anything I could do to help. That was my first exposure to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

In September 2004, I went to the 9/11 People’s Commission in Washington D.C. and helped John Judge with all of his materials. I also ran in and out to put change in the parking meter for him. Two days before that, the 9/11 Omission Hearings took place in New York City. Within days of both, audio was released of the New York Hearings. I heard this for the very first time. When I did, I cried, and cried. I knew what the anger was like from being lied to about 9/11, but I couldn’t imagine having that knowledge on top of losing someone from that day. I swore that Bob and people like him would not have to go through this. From then on, I became extremely active in this cause, and have been to this day. Incidentally, Jenna Orkin also had an enormous impact on me.

When I decided I was going to do this, I dedicated my work to my Grandfather.

I don’t want to be doing this. I wish I didn’t have to. However, it is the right thing to do, and until this issue is resolved, I will continue to do my best.

I wish I had words of wisdom, or something that would inspire you. I don’t. I just know that a great wrong has taken place, and it needs to be dealt with. If we don’t, and allow the cover-up to continue, then in my opinion, we are no better than those who perpetrated the crimes of 9/11.

In the comments in this thread, I said, “whether or not this was just a PR stunt, only time will tell.” Strike one. - Jon

Press Conference by the President

Source: whitehouse.gov

East Room
8:01 P.M. EST
February 9, 2009

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening, everybody. Please be seated.

Before I take your questions tonight, I’d like to speak briefly about the state of our economy and why I believe we need to put this recovery plan in motion as soon as possible.

I took a trip to Elkhart, Indiana today. Elkhart is a place that has lost jobs faster than anywhere else in America. In one year, the unemployment rate went from 4.7 percent to 15.3 percent. Companies that have sustained this community for years are shedding jobs at an alarming speed, and the people who’ve lost them have no idea what to do or who to turn to. They can’t pay their bills and they’ve stopped spending money. And because they’ve stopped spending money, more businesses have been forced to lay off more workers. In fact, local TV stations have started running public service announcements that tell people where to find food banks, even as the food banks don’t have enough to meet the demand.
Read the rest of this entry »

I stumbled across this the other day here. I had never seen it before, so I assumed very few saw it. The embed functionality wasn’t working, so I recorded it. This took place 10 days after the release of 9/11: Press For Truth.

Don’t forget to call your Congressmen and tell them you support the James Zadroga Bill. - Jon

Fealgood Foundation President and Founder John Feal makes an appeal on behalf of 9/11 First Responders and Recovery Workers sick after toxic exposures at Ground Zero. He is joined byTheresa Quibell, widow of Responder Greg Quibell, and Glen Klein, NYPD Detective (retired).

For Immediate Release
February 10, 2009

The Military Commissions System at Guantanamo Bay was an attempt by the Bush Administration to create an “extralegal zone”, wherein the rule of law was ignored. Many Guantanamo detainees were subject to detention without charges, rendition and illegal torture. The Military Commissions System, which allowed evidence obtained through torture and coercive interrogation tactics, has been a dismal failure both legally and practically. The Supreme Court has rejected the policies of this system each time it has reviewed them. Because of the Bush Administration’s mistaken belief in its ability to craft a new legal system, which clearly created avoidable moral and legal challenges, justice may never be served.

President Obama has paused all proceedings at Guantanamo Bay for 120 days in order for his legal team to attempt to design a system in which the verdicts will withstand the scrutiny of the inevitable appeals process. He is rightfully attempting to fix the quagmire that was created by the previous administration.

If, ultimately, the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are unable to be properly prosecuted because of the fatal flaws in the system, then those in the Bush Administration who were responsible for creating that failed system should be held accountable.

# # #

Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

Additionally, please see earlier statements.

September 11th Advocates Statement Regarding the Closing of Guantanamo Bay

January 23, 2009

The Guantanamo Bay Detention Center continues to be an enormous stain on America’s reputation. Newly elected President Obama has taken the first step in removing this stain by keeping his campaign promise to the American people.

The temporary halting of proceedings at Gitmo gives us the “audacity to hope” that President Obama will be able to restore America’s good name, which has been repeatedly tarnished during the past eight years.

We appreciate the tough decisions that President Obama has been forced to make and admire him for taking these difficult tasks on. We look forward to hearing his plan for closing Guantanamo Bay forever, finding a just way to try the detainees and putting an end to this horrific chapter in America’s history.

# # #

Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

September 11th Advocates Statement

April 3, 2008

As women whose husbands were killed on September 11 2001, we feel strongly that the perpetrators of that horrific crime should be brought to justice. But first it is imperative to prove that these six detainees are indeed the guilty parties.

Unfortunately, the Administration insists on trying the suspects in the broken military commissions system. Prosecuting these men within a system that is secretive in nature and lacking in due process, and which uses evidence tainted by questionable interrogation methods and possibly even torture, is a dangerous endeavor. All Americans, and indeed the entire international community, must have the opportunity to witness for themselves the body of evidence that ties these individuals to the 9/11 terrorists’ plot. Otherwise the credibility of any verdict will lack legitimacy. Moreover, unless these trials are above reproach, any convictions will bring the wrath of the international community, damaging what is left of America’s standing in the world. Considering that we continue to rely heavily on cooperation from other nations to provide us with intelligence information on would be terrorists, this course of action can only be detrimental to these crucial relationships, thereby jeopardizing our national security.

These trials, when they finally take place, will be scrutinized around the globe. Unless the victims’ families, the American public and the entire world can be convinced that we are trying and convicting the people who are truly responsible for the 9/11 crimes, these trials will be seen as a miserable failure, dimming our prospects of improved international relationships, and making us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks in the future.

On behalf of ourselves, our husbands, and our families, we support the American Civil Liberties Union in its pursuit of justice and insistence on due process. The only outcome worth pursuing is the truth, and the only way get there is by fair trials that uphold the Constitution.

September 11th Advocates

Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

It’s important to remember who forgot them because it wasn’t us. - Jon

Source: nydailynews.com

Saturday, February 7th 2009, 4:00 AM

A new study by researchers at Mount Sinai Medical Center confirms the terrible truth about the long-term damage suffered by many rescue and recovery workers who responded to the World Trade Center.

The serious ill effects caused by breathing the toxic cloud that draped The Pile are, to this day, persistent and chronic among thousands of brave men and women who pitched in heroically after the terror attack.

Tests on more than 3,160 cops, construction workers and others found that more than 24% showed abnormal lung function between 2004 and 2007, down only slightly from the 28% who exhibited reduced lung function in similar examinations from 2002 to 2004.

The findings reinforce a second truth: Congress must find the will and the wherewithal to provide health care, monitoring and compensation to all those who remain sickened by exposure to WTC dust.

As it happened, New York Reps. Carolyn Maloney, Jerry Nadler, Pete King and Michael McMahon last week reintroduced legislation to do just that. The same bill died without action last fall, despite the welcome support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The measure would provide $10.9 billion over 10 years to address a health crisis that extends into every state and nearly every congressional district because so many Americans rushed to New York to give aid.

The bill would provide medical care for lung, gastrointestinal and other diseases caused by WTC exposure; track the health of patients over time, and, importantly, reopen the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund as a necessary alternative to litigation.

For more than seven years, Congress and the departed Bush administration refused to uphold America’s obligation to the 9/11 brigade. Among the stumbling blocks is the wrongheaded notion that city taxpayers must shoulder a share of the expense.

Maloney and her colleagues have attempted to sell the legislation by including a provision that would require the city to foot a whopping $500 million of the costs. Mayor Bloomberg has rightly balked.

City Hall is already paying for a set of 9/11 health programs. And, lest anyone miss the point, New York’s budget is so busted that the mayor has proposed raising taxes amid serious talk of laying off thousands of public workers.

Washington must accept its responsibility. The U.S. was attacked on 9/11; New York City just happened to be the primary target. The ill and injured went to the service of their country, and their country owes them.

We have been blessed that America has been spared a second major attack. But there is no doubt terrorists are out there plotting. Should, God forbid, they succeed, would-be responders should not have to worry about being abandoned by the government. Right now, that’s the horrible lesson they can draw.

Jon Gold
2/6/2009

Yesterday, President Obama met with several 9/11 Family Members. Those that are familiar to us would be Sally Regenhard, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza, and Kristen Breitweiser.

Washington Post reports:

Lorie Van Auken, a leader of September 11th Advocates, a group headed by four New Jersey women who lost their husbands in the attacks, called the meeting “impressive,” saying Obama gave detailed answers to their questions and allayed many of their concerns. She said the president did not rule out some form of military commissions in the future and acknowledged shortcomings in dealing with terrorism suspects in regular criminal courts.

“He acknowledged this was quite a mess and it really needed to be looked at by his legal team and by him,” said Van Auken, whose husband, Kenneth Van Auken, was killed in the World Trade Center and whose group supports closing Guantanamo Bay. “I think everybody recognized, no matter which side of the issue they’re on, that this is a quagmire that will not be solved easily.”

Mindy Kleinberg, another member of the group, said Obama also made clear that “nobody is just going to get freed by the closing of Guantanamo.”

“I think the point was that you have to make sure they have a system in place that can actually work,” said Kleinberg, whose husband, Alan Kleinberg, also died in the World Trade Center. “I think even the people who came to the meeting who wanted to keep it open could understand his point of view.”

Sally Regenhard had this to say:

“He said that he’s going to make sure that justice is done regarding the terrorists,” she said in a telephone interview. “And we’ll have an open line of communication with the White House regarding the family members. That’s revolutionary.”

“He assured us that he wants the same things that we want,” Regenhard added.

Now, I’m no fan of President Obama, but the fact that he was willing to give time to the families, and promised them “an open line of communication with the White House” is as Sally Regenhard said, “revolutionary.” Especially when you take into account how the previous White House treated the 9/11 families.

So thank you President Obama for giving them the time of day.

Source: washingtonpost.com

Michael D. Shear, Peter Finn and Dan Eggen
The Washington Post
Thursday, February 5, 2009; 6:23 PM

President Obama will gather tomorrow with victims and families of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and U.S.S. Cole bombing for a face-to-face meeting as his administration struggles to decide how to handle detainees at Guatanamo Bay, Cuba, several of those invited said.

The previously undisclosed meeting at the White House tomorrow afternoon will give the new president a chance to explain his decision to close the controversial prison facility where the U.S. has placed many suspected terrorists since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Obama has been assailed by conservative critics who say the decision to close the facility within a year will lead to putting many of those terrorists back on the street. In a recent interview, former vice president Dick Cheney, an architect of the Bush administration’s war on terror, criticized the decision as reckless.

In an interview with Politico.com, Cheney accused the Obama administration of following “campaign rhetoric” on Guantanamo and warned that the new president’s policies could put the country at greater risk of a new attack.

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an al-Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said.

Obama has defended his decision, saying that closing the facility will make the country safer by putting an end to one of the most controversial symbols of the U.S.-led war against terrorism. He said that symbol has helped terrorists recruit new volunteers.

One 9/11 activist, who declined to be identified talking about the meeting, said “fireworks” are likely at the gathering because it will include both relatives who oppose and those who support Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo Bay. “There’s been some noise that some families don’t like the idea and others do, so this is a chance to discuss that,” the activist said.

Jim Riches, a retired New York firefighter whose son, Jimmy Riches, died in the 9-11 attacks, said in an interview Thursday that he wants to hear directly from President Obama what the government intends to do with the prisoners.

“I want to know, are they going to drop the charges? Are they going to try them in another court?” he said. “I want to let them know that these men are dangerous.”

Riches praised Obama for agreeing to a meeting so soon after taking office.

“The issue tomorrow is what are they going to do with those detainees. We want justice for the ones that said they did it,” he said. “Some people may say it’s a political move. But I want my voice to be heard. It’s a sign of an open door policy, and that’s good.”

Obama aides did not respond to questions about the meeting. The administration may want to impress on families that they are not dropping charges against alleged terrorists, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks who is facing capital charges in Guantanamo, and that he and others will be brought to justice.

Obama had instructed military prosecutors to seek a 120-day continuance in the military commissions in Guantanamo Bay while the administration studied how to handle the approximately 245 detainees at the facility when the prison in Cuba is closed. In an executive order, Obama said the prison should be closed within a year.

But the request for a stay was rejected by the chief military judge in Guantanamo, who decided to proceed with the arraignment Monday of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of organizing the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole.

The refusal by Judge James Pohl, an Army Colonel, has left the administration with little choice but to withdraw the charges “without prejudice” against Nashiri, a procedural move that allows the government to halt proceedings without reference to the judge.

The administration has yet to act in the case, and Friday’s meeting may, in part, be to explain that the charges can be reinstated at a later date in some reformed military commissions system. The tactic was also used by the Bush administration when it wanted to stop various proceedings in Guantanamo. The Pentagon has dismissed without prejudice charges in six cases, and reinstated them later in three of those cases.

If Nashiri, a Saudi facing capital charges, pleads guilty Monday, he could box in the administration as the legal principle of double-jeopardy would apply and it would be very difficult to move his case to another court, according to defense attorneys.
ad_icon

Withdrawing the charges against Nashiri could also trigger a withdrawal against all 20 other detainees currently facing trial in Guantanamo. Defense lawyers said they would insist that all detainees be treated equally during the review process.

The president may also want to explain some possible alternative to military commissions, including moving proceedings to federal court or military courts martial.

The relatives of 9/11 victims have divided along somewhat partisan lines in the seven years since the attacks, with some strongly supporting Bush’s policies and others growing increasingly dismayed by the direction of U.S. counterterrorism efforts. As a result, Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo Bay prompted differing reactions among various groups.

September 11th Advocates, for example, issued a statement last month praising Obama’s announcement and calling Guantanamo “an enormous stain on America’s reputation.”

“The temporary halting of proceedings at Gitmo gives us the ‘audacity to hope’ that President Obama will be able to restore America’s good name, which has been repeatedly tarnished during the past eight years,” said the statement from the group, which is led by four New Jersey widows of 9/11 victims. “We appreciate the tough decisions that President Obama has been forced to make and admire him for taking these difficult tasks on.”

A group called 9/11 Parents and Families of Firefighters, by contrast, questioned Obama’s decision to suspending the trials of several detainees while he maps out the closure of Guantanamo Bay. “We cannot understand why it has taken so long for the prosecution of the detainees in cases where substantial evidence exists of direct or

indirect involvement in the terrorist attacks” of 9/11, the group said in a Jan. 25 statement.