December, 15, 2009
Federal Judge Dieter Deiseroth: It is very unfortunate that the media are not prepared to face the issue of 9/11 and ask the unsanswered questions
Question: Do you think the proposal of an independent 9/11 investigation is realistic?
Judge Dieter Deiseroth:: I think the suggestion is reasonable and necessary. Because the official investigation is the central justification for the war ( “Operation Enduring Freedom”) and for serious alterations of the U.S. legal system under the so-called homeland security legislation.
Question: This should be difficult because neither politics nor the big media, dare to critically question the official version of 9/11.
Judge Dieter Deiseroth: If the official story of 9/11 is further effectively disseminated by all governments – then it is very costly and difficult because of the effect of solidified public opinion to question it . A major research effort is needed and extensive research, time and monetary resources must be available, which is difficult in a time when resources in the newsrooms are being cut down.
[efoods]But then after all, even the construct of lies to justify the Iraq war was brought down. We now know that the Bush administration, in terms of credibility and veracity, was anything but trustworthy. It is unfortunate that many within the media, are still not sufficiently prepared to face the issue of 9 / 11 and the open unanswered questions . Maybe also because of the
abyss that becomes clear then.
Question: Not too long ago alternative explanations of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US were discussed.
Judge Dieter Deiseroth: Indeed. Parliamentarians of the Democratic Party of Japan, which has won the last election in a landslide, for about 2 years in the Japanese parliament, have repeatedly questioned the official Bush version of 9 / 11 with very serious arguments and demanded explanations. Something like this did not take place in German parliament, which is rather unfortunate.
Question: But the alternative theories of 9 / 11 also have many shortcomings.
Judge Dieter Deiseroth: This is absolutely correct. I can warn to replace the official conspiracy theory of the Bush administration with hasty drawn alternative conspiracy theories. If the critics of the official version really want to achieve a new national or international investigation into the attacks of 9 / 11, then they must impose the highest levels of integrity, fact-orientation
and openness to possible objections. The only way they can avoid to discredit their own arguments, for example by Conjecture and speculation disguised as evidence. I assert: On both sides, that is, both at the official presentation of the Bush administration with the 9/11-Commission Report and on the alternative side with it’s many counter-theories there is a sea of questions and also
a sea of blatant untruth. This fact is almost screaming for explanations.
Question: Can the military engagement in Afghanistan be based on international law’s right of self-defense? Did 9/11 not give the U.S. the right to defend itself and its allies a reason for an emergency?
Judge Dieter Deiseroth: We need to realize that the (military) right to self defense, as guaranteed in Article 51 of the UN Charter, in general, may be obtained only in cases where a state is attacked militarily (“if an armed attack occurs”). It must be, therefore, a current military offensive act, which is currently carried out immediately present or imminent. Furthermore, this right to self-defense may only be directed at the state which initiated an attack, or to which an attack can be atributed.
The entire interview in german:
Dieter Deiseroth, born 1950, studied law, sociology and political science. From 1977 to 1983 Research Fellow at the University of Giessen and lawyer. PhD in Law. Since 1983, administrative judge in Duesseldorf, from 1989 to 1991 at the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. Then Chief Judge of the Administrative Court in Muenster and Head of the Data Protection Agency of North Rhine-Westphalia. Since 2001 judge at the German Federal Administrative Court.