9/11, 7/7, 22/7 and the ICC
17. oktober 2011 av Torstein Viddal
«The Prosecutor» is a documentary about the ICC – the International Criminal Court in the Hague – and its first Prosecutor, Ocampo.
Although this court has almost entirely up until now been investigating crimes in Africa, there is of course no rule or statute that limits its scope to Africa or African people as such.
On the contrary, this court is meant to be applicable everywhere and for everyone, in principle. The chief limitations to its scope are in 1) time and 2) space.
Because the ICC was first established in 2002, it only accepts for investigation crimes committed on or after July 1st 2002.
And because the court depends on cooperation with its member states, it can only operate in member nations and/or on nationals of those member nations. But if a suspected criminal of a non-member nation – say Dick Cheney or George W. Bush – visits London or Paris, local police may arrest the suspected war criminals and take them to the Hague, provided, of course, that their crimes were committed on or after July 1st 2002, and that they were committed in a member nation.
Now, it can most definitely be proven that our suspected Norwegian terrorist and mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik is extremely islamophobic. It can also be proven that he believed absolutely the official conspiracy theories around the events of 9/11 in New York and 7/7 in London.
These effective Dolchstoßlegenden – stab-in-the-back legends – blaming muslims for extreme crimes directed against the general public in two Western nations – are more or less completely unproven, and yet they work very efficiently to increase and maintain the level of islamophobic hatred in our societies.
Unfortunately, the crimes of 9/11 happened both before the establishment of the ICC, and in a nation that still in October 2011 hasn’t become a member of the ICC. 9/11 is therefore outside the scope of the ICC.
For the London bombings of 7/7, they clearly happened after the establishment of the ICC, and in a member nation. However, the actual perpetrators, for all we know, may not be British citizens, and they may not be citizens of a member nation.
In order to be accepted for investigation, a crime must take place in a member nation, or be committed by a national of a member nation, after that nation became a member of the ICC.
It is more or less impossible for this group, «Keep Talking», or for our group back in Oslo, to do much more than just to «keep talking». The main problem, I think, is that both the general public and the mainstream media, simply don’t expect ordinary citizens to take it on themselves to investigate huge crimes like these. Instead, they expect the police, the courts or the international community to properly investigate such crimes. And in a way, they are right! These crimes SHOULD be investigated by professionals, to the extent that such professionals can be found that are not intrinsically or obviously corrupt or dependent in any way on the suspects whom they are supposed to investigate.
In Oslo, the Labour government set up an «independent» 22/7 Commission, shortly after the horrible events. Yet weeks before the names of the Commission members were revealed, Labour politicians were very clear in pointing out that our 22/7 Commission would not be an investigating commission, and that it should not seek to establish blame.
Curious of this, I sent an email to the Prime Minister’s office requesting the mandate for this 22/7 Commission, as opposed to the rules for more regular investigating commissions. On August 15th I received these documents from the PM’s office, right after they were finally settled.
Now, in this mandate for the 22/7 Commission, it is clearly stated there is only one perpetrator – «the perpetrator» – and that the Commission shall not determine legal responsibility or other judicial responsibility concerning the events, nor judge the police and the prosecutor’s own investigation of the attacks. We can deduce from this that the Commission will not consider other people’s participation in the attacks, much less members of the police itself.
This leaves us with a situation where a country – Norway – is «unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate or prosecute», which as it happens is all that is necessary for war crimes and crimes of genocide to be investigated by the ICC.
Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist suspect, was under the influence of several extreme and dangerous conspiracy theories, among them the official American conspiracy theory of the New York 9/11 attacks, and the official British conspiracy theory of the London 7/7 attacks, both of which are presumably still subjects to heavy NATO media gag orders, 10 and 6 years after, respectively.
It is my presumption that the ICC *can* investigate ongoing NATO propaganda campaigns and gag orders that are affecting Norwegian mass media reporting to this day, concerning the New York 9/11 attacks, even though the attacks themselves happened in 2001 and in a non-member nation.
The 9/11 false-flag attack is the proverbial «gift that keeps on giving» for its Zionist plotters, or rather keeps spreading wars and hatred, through speeches, debates, movies and mass media reporting. The spreading of the racist war propaganda that led to the terror attacks in Norway this summer, and the censorship and the gag orders, must be investigated by the ICC as a form of «funding» or «incitement» to acts of terrorism.
Same goes for the London 7/7 attacks and other racist war propaganda eminating from the intelligence services in the United Kingdom, with one important difference: These crimes *can* actually themselves be accepted for investigation by the ICC.
And now, over to the 22/7 events in particular.
Norway’s biggest daily newspaper Aftenposten tells us two months after the terror – on September 22nd – that the families have met with both the police director and the minister of justice, but still haven’t received any answer. Here are the 13 questions they asked on August 23rd, based on their experiences:
1. Did the Buskerud police district receive worried calls already before shooting started?
2. When did the shooting at Utøya start?
3. Why did Northern Buskerud/Oslo police district change the time for when police received information of the shooting at Utøya from 5.02 to 5.27?
4. With several hundred youths with mobiles, is it likely that Buskerud police district only received messages of shooting as late as 5.27? The boyfriend of a girl that was killed says he alerted 112 Buskerud of shooting at 5.25, after the third round of shooting salvos.
5. Why didn’t Northern Buskerud police request assistance at once in stead of waiting until 5.38?
6. Why wasn’t the Military requested by police already after the explosion in Oslo to put a helicopter in alert, so they could take off on short notice?
7. Was it unthinkable for the Oslo police that the second terror attack that waited for, could come outside Oslo?
8. Did Buskerud police answer to anyone at Utøya that a helicopter was on its way?
9. Why didn’t police from Buskerud go over to Utøya already before 6 o’clock, in stead of waiting for the DELTA force?
10. Is it according to procedures for such operations that police should avoid risk even when it means lives will be lost?
11. Why didn’t Buskerud police use a suitable boat for the transport to Utøya? Boats were available from the Hønefoss Fire Department, but were not requested.
12. What’s the expected reaction time for such an operation for the police? If it’s correct that Buskerud only registered the case at 5.27, is it then acceptable with a reaction time of more than 60 minutes? What would be an acceptable reaction time if the event happened in a more rural area?
13. Are there any requirements for response time in present emergency plans?
In addition, we now know that the police operation HQ directed the whole operation from Oslo police chief of staff Fredriksen’s office, where also the anti-terror DELTA force commander Snortheimsmoen was present after the bomb and all through the Utøya massacre. From this police HQ no police or military helicopters were requested untill after the suspect was arrested. HQ also did not close the nearby subway system, they did not close the main exit roads out of Oslo, they did not close the airports or the national borders until well after 6 o’clock.
We also know from an anonymous police leak in Norway’s biggest newspaper Aftenposten on August 26th, that the DELTA force conducted a terror drill for 5 days from July 18 to 22. In fact, this drill ended at 3 o’clock, mere 15 minutes before the suspect allegedly parked his van next to the Prime Minister’s office. Through the NTB news service, this news story about the five-day drill was published in about 40 other local or regional newspapers in Norway, yet no follow-up story has emerged in any mainstream news source since August 26th.
There seems to be some sort of gag-order at work relating to further news coverage – or even mention – of this 5-day terror drill by DELTA. Also, there seems to be a gag on photographs of the bomb crater next to the Prime Minister’s office. Only one image has ever been published, and this is a still image from a video shot with a mobile phone by Johan Christian Tandberg.
Police helicopter pilots being turned down after phoning in 15 minutes after the Oslo bomb blast further indicate that there was some sort of stand-down order involved, which resulted in the first police helicopter arriving at Utøya at a quarter past nine in the evening.
Now, what I would suggest, based on the information presented here, is as follows: We gather as many honest and high-level signatories as possible to a letter to the ICC – the International Criminal Court – about the 22/7 terror events. I will coordinate the writing of this letter, and the gathering of signatures in the Nordic nations, and hopefully one of you can coordinate the same work for England or the UK.
Thank you for listening, and for giving me the opportunity to meet with you and speak in this very special forum.