This story makes more sense if you remember the disclosure back in 2009 that most of the so-called information we have from the 9-11 Commission Report was obtained from CIA "interrogations", which we all know is just a euphemism for torture. NBC News says "441 of the more than 1,700 footnotes in the Commission’s Final Report refer to the CIA interrogations" which sounds like it's about one quarter of the info, right? However if you examine the actual facts of the case in Chapters 4 to 6 - i.e. the evidence of "who did it?" and "how did they do it?", you'll see that the "facts" come from those 441 little footnotes. How is this considered real evidence if they got it from torture? You could probably get a hardened terrorist to say Barney the Dinosaur committed this act if you "interrogated" him long enough.
'A U.S. military judge is considering broad security rules for the war crimes tribunal of five Guantanamo prisoners charged in the Sept. 11 attacks, including measures to prevent the accused from publicly revealing what happened to them in the CIA's secret network of overseas prisons.
'Prosecutors have asked the judge at a pretrial hearing starting today to approve what is known as a protective order that is intended to prevent the release of classified information during the eventual trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has portrayed himself as the mastermind of the terrorist attacks, and four co-defendants.' (St. Louis Post-Dispatch article).
media-underground.net