Falk, a retired Princeton University professor and U.N. Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, appeared as the keynote speaker for the Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems law journal 2011 symposium.

Though the visit was controversial — a watchdog group had asked the UI to rescind its invitation because of Falk’s statements about 9/11 — he addressed the issue just once, during a question-and-answer session.

Instead, he told the crowd of several hundred assembled in the Pomerantz Career Center auditorium the policy undertaken by the U.S. government the day after the terrorist attacks affected a large part of the world.

“For much of the world, Sept. 12 was more important than Sept. 11,” he said. “Sept. 12 was the response to the terrorist attacks.”

He cited the United States’ cooperative relationship with autocratic leaders as an example.

But Falk said the revolution in Egypt represents the continuing downfall of a hard-power strategy, embodied by military exercises of violence. The current developments in Egypt as well as previous anticolonial movements are demonstrating a major shift toward a soft-power approach, marked by a wave of nonviolent resistance.

“It’s really saying something new has emerged in political experience that is embodied in this inability of hard power to control the destiny of societies and peoples,” the professor said.

Falk praised the Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems before his speech for tackling current policy in its symposium, “Ten Years After 9/11: Rethinking Counterterrorism.”

Alison Kurth, a third-year College of Law student and the editor of the journal, told The Daily Iowan the staff wanted to mark the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by taking a multidisciplinary look at what could be done to prevent terrorism.

“We thought this was the perfect year to do that,” Kurth said.

A handful of protesters, including UI law alumnus James Johnson, handed out fliers describing Falk as “an extremist ideologue.”

Johnson said he had been accused of trying to impede on Falk’s freedom of speech to appear at the university.

“We’re just exercising the same right,” Johnson said as he handed out a flier.

But Falk didn’t touch on the controversy until the end of the lecture. One man professed his disbelief at the accepted 9/11 story and asked Falk if he believed the official version of events.

Falk chuckled.

“I was waiting for the question,” he said.

Falk responded by explaining he didn’t have the necessary knowledge to answer the question but said he felt there was enough “existential doubt” to re-examine the incident.

“It can’t be dismissed by calling anyone who says there are some unanswered questions a conspiracy theorist,” Falk said.

Audience member Harb Harb, 26, said the lecture brought issues to the forefront he hadn’t considered.

“[Falk] was sharing his thoughts in a way thatwasn’t offensive and made us reflect on recent American history,” the fourth-year medical student said.

The post Richard Falk Speaks on the Post-9/11 World appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

Both the UN Secretary General and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations harshly criticized some remarks in my personal blog that mentioned the 9/11 attacks. They referred to the views expressed there as ‘despicable and deeply offensive,’ ‘noxious, ‘inflammatory,’ and ‘preposterous.’ Their comments were apparently made in response to a letter written to the UN Secretary General by the head of UN Monitor, a Geneva-based highly partisan NGO, that called misleading attention to this passage in the blog. Ambassador Rice called for my dismissal from my unpaid post as an independent Special Rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Council with a mandate to report upon the Israeli observance of “human rights in Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.”

For anyone who read the blog post in its entirety, it should be plain that the reference to the 9/11 issues is both restrained and tangential. What is stressed in the blog is the importance of carefully examining evidence before drawing conclusions about political and legal responsibility for highly sensitive public acts, and the importance for the serenity of the society of achieving closure in a responsible manner. I never endorsed doubts about the official version of 9/11 beyond indicating what anyone who has objectively examined the controversy knows — that there remain certain gaps in the official explanation that give rise to an array of conspiratorial explanations, and that the 9/11 Commission unfortunately did not put these concerns to rest. My plea was intended to encourage addressing these gaps in a credible manner, nothing more, nothing less. I certainly meant no disrespect toward the collective memory of 9/11 in the country and elsewhere. On the contrary, my intention was to encourage an investigation that might finally achieve closure with respect to doubts that remain prevalent among important sectors of the public, including among some 9/11 families.

What seems apparent from this incident, which is itself disturbing, is that any acknowledgement of doubt about the validity of the official version of the 9/11 events, while enjoying the legal protection of free speech, is denied the political and moral protection that are essential if an atmosphere of free speech worthy of a democracy is to be maintained. When high officials can brand someone who raises some doubts in the most cautious language as ‘an enemy of the people,’ then there are either things to hide or a defensive fury that is out of all proportion to the provocation. To seek further inquiry into the unanswered questions about 9/11 is surely not an unreasonable position

What is dismaying to me is that neither the office of the Secretary General nor the U.S. Mission to the United Nation made any effort to contact me to seek clarification of my remarks on these issues that are not connected with my UN role prior to making their insulting criticisms damaging to my reputation. I would think that as a representative of the UN and a citizen of the United States, I am at least entitled to this minimal courtesy, and more substantially, that whatever criticisms are made are based on what I said rather than on a manifestly inflammatory letter written by the UN Monitor, that has made a habit of publicly attacking me in consistently irresponsible and untruthful ways, presumably with the intention of diverting attention from my criticisms of Israel’s occupation policies in the Palestinian territories. It is always more tempting to shoot the messenger than heed the message. A similar tactic, what I call ‘the politics of deflection’ was deployed over a year ago in a shabby attempt to discredit the distinguished South African jurist, Richard Goldstone, a person of impeccable credentials as an international public servant. The intention was again to avoid a proper focus upon the devastating findings and recommendations of the Goldstone Report submitted to the United Nations after conducting a scrupulous inquiry into the allegations of violation of law associated with the Israeli attacks on Gaza between December 27, 2008 and January 18, 2009.

I remain determined to report as fully and honestly as possible about the massive human rights violations confronting Palestinians who have now lived without rights under occupation for more than 43 years, and to do my best not to let such personal attacks impair my capacity to carry out the assignment that I was invited to perform by the UN.

What the United States Government, the Secretary-General and the media should be focused on is the ongoing, widespread and systematic violation of Palestinians’ human rights by Israel. Only since the beginning of 2011, at least four Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli forces and more than 33 others have been injured. This is in addition to the expansion of settlements, home demolitions, forced evictions and displacement of Palestinian families, revocation of residency permits and forced transfers, particularly devastating in East Jerusalem, detention and mistreatment of over 6000 Palestinians, including children, as well as the illegal blockade of Gaza. My forthcoming report to the Human Rights Council addresses these and other severe ongoing violations of Palestinian rights by Israel.

Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years. Since 2002 he has lived in Santa Barbara, California, and taught at the local campus of the University of California in Global and International Studies and since 2005 chaired the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

The post Richard Falk Responds to The Lobby’s Vilification appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

“I wish to be absolutely clear; I do not endorse the theory that the US government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks,” Richard Falk said in a statement released by the UN human rights office.

The United States on Tuesday demanded his dismissal for “noxious” comments over an alleged US cover-up.

Non-governmental organization UN Watch, which has frequently been at odds with Falk over his sharp criticism of Israeli rights violations against the Palestinians, had complained about repeated doubts raised by Falk about 9/11.

A fresh complaint this month by the group about a new article Falk posted on his blog sparked Washington’s furious reaction.

It also prompted UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to condemn the special rapporteur’s stance as “inflammatory rhetoric” and “an affront” to victims.

Falk accused UN Watch of “deliberately” distorting his comments and using that as a basis to get him sacked as a UN Special Rapporteur.

“What I did do, in my personal blog, in which I was discussing the differing perceptions that develop after political assassinations and deeply tragic events… was argue that investigations must be, and must be seen to be, transparent, exhaustive and honest,” he said.

Falk said he did not intend to show disrespect towards the memory of 9/11, its victims and their families.

The US-based academic and legal expert wrote in his personal blog on January 11 that there was a “reluctance” to address “awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations” given for the attacks.

“What may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie silence of the mainstream media, unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an Al-Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials,” he wrote on his blog.

Almost 3,000 people died on September 11, 2001 when planes hijacked by Al-Qaeda suicide operatives were flown into the World Trade Center towers in New York, as well as the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field.

The post UN Rights Expert Denies Suggesting US Role in 9/11 appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

This most certainly applies to 9/11.

Recently, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights, Richard Falk, wrote in a blog that he thought there was an “apparent cover-up” being perpetrated by the U.S. Government with regards to the 9/11 attacks.

He said that the mainstream media has been “unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials.” This is 100% accurate as I show in Fact #25 of my article, “The Facts Speak For Themselves.”

Over the years, anyone that had any kind of “name” that questioned what happened on 9/11 has been viciously attacked.

Former special advisor to the White House on green jobs, Van Jones, had to leave his position because he signed a statement in 2004 in support of a new investigation into 9/11.

Kevin Bracken, the president of the Victorian Trades Hall and secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, said on a radio show that “I believe the official story is a conspiracy theory that doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.” The Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard responded by saying Kevin’s comments were “stupid and wrong.”

Because of Richard Falk’s statements, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned his remarks in a statement, and now the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice is calling for him to be removed.

It’s important to note that a campaign took place in 2004 to get the United Nations to have its own investigation into 9/11. That campaign was ignored. It’s also important to note that a rally was held in front of the United Nations on September 11th, 2005 that was also ignored.

Richard Falk is not the only one that questions the official account of 9/11. Many polls over the years show this. A poll from Germany recently stated that 89% of Germans do not believe the official account of 9/11.

So why is 9/11 a “third rail?” Could it be because you are not allowed to question the myth that the United States Government created about that day that enables them, or “justifies” every criminal thing they have done since that day?

Maybe.

In any case, Methinks thou dost protest too much, and there needs to be real justice and accountability for what happened. There most certainly is a cover-up of 9/11, and Richard Falk should not be condemned for saying so.

The post Methinks thou dost protest too much appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

US academic Richard Falk wrote in a blog this month that there had been an “apparent cover-up” by US authorities over the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which hijackers flew airliners into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon near Washington, killing more than 3,000 people.

“In my view, Mr. Falk’s latest commentary is so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he should no longer continue in his position on behalf of the UN,” Rice said in a statement.

“I would note that US and many other diplomats walked out in protest in September 2010 when Iranian President Ahmadinejad made similarly slanderous remarks before the U.N. General Assembly,” she said, adding that Falk’s comments were “despicable and deeply offensive.”

Falk, the UN Human Rights Council’s special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, wrote in his blog that mainstream media had refused to accept “well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials.”

In a letter to Ban last Thursday, UN Watch, a Geneva-based advocacy group affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, called on the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to “strongly condemn Mr. Falk’s offensive remarks — and … immediately remove him from his post.”

UN Watch frequently criticizes the human rights council, saying it often berates Israel while ignoring rights violations by developing countries. It has targeted Falk in the past.

Ban’s chief of staff Vijay Nambiar said on Monday that the secretary-general condemned the remarks but said it was not up to Ban to fire Falk, since he was appointed by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, a 47-nation body created by the UN General Assembly in 2006.

Statement by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on Richard Falk

The post US Condemns UN Expert for 9/11 Statements appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

The official, Vijay Nambiar, said however that it was not up to Ban to fire the expert, U.S. academic Richard Falk, as demanded by UN Watch, a Geneva-based advocacy group.

Falk wrote in a blog this month that there had been an “apparent cover-up” by U.S. authorities over the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which hijackers flew airliners into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon near Washington.

He said mainstream media had been “unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials.”

In a letter to Ban last Thursday, UN Watch director Hillel Neuer called on the U.N. chief to “strongly condemn Mr. Falk’s offensive remarks — and … immediately remove him from his post.”

A letter of reply from Nambiar said Ban “condemns (Falk’s) remarks. He has repeatedly stated his view that any such suggestion is preposterous — and an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in the attack.”

Nambiar said Falk and other rights experts were not appointed by Ban but by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, a 47-nation body created by the U.N. General Assembly in 2006. “Their continuance in their jobs is thus for the Council to decide,” he added.

UN Watch says on its website it is a non-governmental organization, accredited with the United Nations and affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, that aims to monitor U.N. performance against the yardstick of the U.N. Charter.

It supports U.N. goals but frequently criticizes the Human Rights Council, saying it constantly berates Israel but ignores many rights violations by developing countries. It has often targeted Falk, the council’s special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, for anti-Israeli comments.

In a statement, Neuer welcomed Nambiar’s letter but said the Human Rights Council could not be trusted to fire Falk. He said Ban and U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay had “the power and responsibility to play an influential and decisive role.”

The post UN Chief Condemns Rights Expert's 9/11 Comments appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.