NGO Says Richard Falk Has “Zero Credibility,” Urges UN Chief to Fire Him

UN Chief “Condemns” UN Palestine Expert for
“Preposterous” Denial of 9/11 Terror Attacks

WASHINGTON, January 24, 2011 – On the eve of a U.S. Congressional hearing into the U.N. Human Rights Council, the controversial body’s Palestine expert, Richard Falk, was “condemned” today by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for his “preposterous” comments questioning whether the 9/11 terrorist attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. government. Mr. Ban said Falk’s remarks were “an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in the attack.”

Click here for PDF of UN chief’s letter, or see text below.

The rare U.N. condemnation of one of its own officials came in a letter sent today to Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, after the Geneva-based human rights group called on the U.N. chief to condemn and remove Falk, an appeal echoed by an editorial last Friday in the New York Daily News.

“We welcome the Secretary-General’s unequivocal condemnation of the despicable comments by this official of the U.N. Human Rights Council, and we urge Mr. Ban, together with UN rights chief Navi Pillay, to take the next logical step and call on Falk — who is a serial offender with zero credibility — to be removed,” said Neuer, who will be testifying at the Congressional hearing tomorrow in Washington.

While the UN chief’s letter placed responsibility for Falk’s removal on the Human Rights Council, Neuer said that the council could not be trusted to act on its own, and that Mr. Ban and Ms. Pillay had the power and responsibility to play an influential and decisive role. Falk has stated that his current term expires in May, but most experts are automatically renewed for another three years.

In a recent blog post, Falk endorsed the “authoritative” book by 9/11 conspiracy theorist David Ray Griffin, and wrote of an “apparent cover up.” He said that the mainstream media was “unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials.” Falk has made similar statements numerous times before, and his endrosements are cited in Griffin’s books and YouTube videos.

See today’s UN letter below.

####

UNITED NATIONS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL

24 January 2011
Dear Mr. Neuer,

In response to your letter to the Secretary-General dated 20 January 2011 on the subject of a recent blog post by Mr. Richard Falk, the Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967:

You are aware, no doubt, that the Special Rapporteurs and other independent experts who represent the Human Rights Council are appointed by the Council, not by the Secretary-General. Their continuance in their jobs is thus for the Council to decide.

That said, I feel very strongly that these representatives, however eminent they may be in their fields, have a clear responsibility to uphold the high standards of the United Nations and the Council.

You specifically refer to Mr. Falk’s allegations of an “apparent cover-up” related to the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. The Secretary-General condemns these 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.

Yours sincerely,

Vijay Nambiar
Chef de Cabinet

10 Responses to “NGO Says Richard Falk Has “Zero Credibility,” Urges UN Chief to Fire Him”


  • Yes, Richard Falk’s comments are “preposterous” – except for the enormous amount of evidence supporting those comments. It is unfortunate that the Secretary-General chose simply to “condemn” Falk’s comments instead of using the UN’s resources to investigate the relevant evidence. Surely such an investigation is justified by the fact that the official account of 9/11 has been rejected by more than a dozen professional organizations, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (with over 1,400 professional members), Scientists for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Military Officers for 9/11 Truth, and Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth. Given the fact that the official account of 9/11 is now rejected by virtually all professionals who are independent (of the US government) and have studied the evidence, it is this official account that is “preposterous,” not Mr. Falk’s comments.

  • He brings up a very good point. We owe it to the 3000 lives lost to investigate the 9/11 cover-up. Too, too many questions remain unanswered. Too many things happened that defy all laws of physics if you just accept the story of 9/11. That is a fact, not a conspiracy theory.

  • It is UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who has discredited himself with his reactionary and ill-informed response to the interventions of Dr. Falk on the state of scholarly controversies concerning the contested events of 9/11. Certainly Professor David Ray Griffin’s ten books on the subject are key works crucial to describing the scholarly landscape of the ongoing research concerning 9/11.

    Until Mr. Ban Ki-moon has done his homework on the contested interpretations of what did or did not happen on 9/11 he should restrain himself from criticizing UN staff like Dr. Falk. Dr. Falk is a learned academic who demonstrates his determination to respect human rights by doing the necessary homework to make informed observations and conclusions about the contested events of 9/11.

    By not keeping himself up-to-date on the scholarship of 9/11, Mr. Ban Ki-moon is unfortunately part of the constituency that denigrates all Arabs and Muslims who have been smeared collectively by those who disseminate an unsupported interpretation of what happened on the fateful day.

    We expect much better from the figurehead of the UN, an institution cheapened and demeaned by the intervention of the Secretary-General into an area on which he obviously has not been properly briefed. Decency requires that the UN Secretary-General favor evidence over the propaganda effects of a toxic public mythology that perpetuates the ruthlessness of the illegal 9/11 Wars.

    Anthony J. Hall
    Professor of Globalization Studies
    University of Letbridge

  • The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission have publicly charged that their own investigation was a cover-up that was “set up to fail.” Virtually everyone who examines the evidence agrees with them, and with Richard Falk, on this topic; and a great many privately agree with the great BBC Mideast journalist Alan Hart that the Mossad played an active role in the attacks, and was probably responsible for the demolition of the three World Trade Center towers. No wonder Zionists like Neuer are so terrified of Richard Falk, whose exemplary honesty threatens their ongoing Big Lie in Occupied Palestine.

  • I wish to express my surprise and concern at the attempt by Executive Director of UN Watch, Hillel C. Neuer, to suppress and discourage discussion about the events of September 11, 2001.

    In his letter to the UN Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, Mr Neuer demanded the dismissal of the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on Palestine, Richard Falk, simply because Mr Falk has expressed an opinion about the official account of the 9/11 events.

    This demand for Mr Falk’s dismissal by Mr Neuer, epitomises a profound contempt for the right of freedom of opinion and expression, a right that has been codified in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

    “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

    It seems clear to me that Mr Neuer has scant regard for the human rights of any who have doubts or questions about the official account of September 11, 2001.

    This attitude of contempt for the right of individuals to hold and express opinions that are contrary to official dogma, is widespread and enthusiastically encouraged by government officials and the media, especially in the West.

    Attempts to curb free speech in relation to 9/11, such as this letter from Neuer, are not based on any sort of rational argument or empirical evidence, rather they are based solely on subjective opinions and political considerations.

    I consider Neuer’s demand for the dismissal of Richard Falk to be an attempt to censure and censor public debate about the events of 9/11. I can see no justification for this blatant abuse of basic human rights by the Executive Director of UN Watch.

  • Mr. Falk, instead of “0″ credibility, has “100%” credibility. Listen to him. Follow his leads. See http://www.911truth.org and the writings of David Ray Griffin. The UN bears a tremendous responsibility to reveal the truth of the 9-11 cover-up and reverse the world-wide influence of this injustice.

  • Wonderful to see David Ray Griffin returning to the fray with his comment on this page. He is an outstanding intellectual of this era – someone who truly merits the term and does it proud.

    So is Richard Falk. His outspoken support for justice and the truth over a long period has made a real and positive difference.

    I long for the day when the UN Secretary General will honour such courageous and committed individuals and the contribution they make to world society.

    Ban Ki-moon certainly has no business weighing into a complex debate with remarks of such poor calibre one might expect to hear them on Fox News.

  • The demand for Mr Falk’s dismissal by Mr Neuer on January 20, in a letter to Mr Ban Ki Moon is totally unwarranted… even in due deference to the 9.11 victims.
    Isn’it true that there are “ well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the (9/11) events “ ?
    For instance, didn’t you read, Mr Hillel Neuer, the two following testimonies (picked out of thousand others) ?…

    *** 1 – Michelle Little – Sister of Firefighter David M. Weiss, FDNY, Rescue Company 1, Midtown Manhattan, who lost his life trying to rescue others from the World Trade Center the day of the attacks.
    Press Conference, National Press Club 9/12/06 : “I am here today to call for the facts of September 11, 2001 to be released to the American public. … The time is now to call upon all the Americans to lobby local media to cover this story and to pressure members of Congress to support legislation by reopening this investigation. We must hold those involved accountable for this atrocious tragedy. My brother, David, and ten brothers from his unit were murdered on 9/11. For them and for all of our mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles that died that day, it is imperative for their lives to know the truth.” http://www.911blogger.com/node/2824

    2 – Bill Doyle – Father of Joseph Doyle, Cantor Fitzgerald, who was a victim of the North Tower collapse. Founder of the Bill Doyle 9/11 Support Group, a bi-partisan support group of more than 7,000 members of 2,573 families.
    Article 8/6/05: “I honestly don’t believe the government story,” said Doyle, adding everything about the official story and the follow-up investigation has not lived up to his or most all the other victims and survivors expectations. “The 9/11 Commission report doesn’t even begin to get at the truth.” …
    “What we really need is an entire new investigation to answer all the questions not answered by the 9/11 Commission,” said Doyle, who is urging all Americans to support the victims and family members in fighting for this cause. “I’ve heard so many stories from whistle blowers, compelling stories that need to be told that have been silenced by the government and the media.” ***

    So, I repeat : isn’it true that there are “ well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the (9/11) events “ ? And terrible omissions of key evidences in the 9/11 Report ?
    Isn’it true that the fate of The Pentagon’s Able Danger program is a blatant example of how, since the 9.11.01, the U.S. government is blocking efforts to reveal failures of intelligence which seemingly led to the 9/11 attacks ?
    Are you not aware of Able Danger operatives having identified Atta as long as 21 months before the Sept. 11 attacks ? And that this claim – later supported by the Able Danger team’s leader, Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott – contradicted a central finding of the commission Congress had set up to probe the 9/11 attacks, which concluded that none of the hijackers had been known to U.S. authorities before the assault.
    Don’t you know that Navy Capt. Scott Philpott and Army Reserve Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer remembered seeing Atta’s photograph on documents collected by the intelligence program, and that the commission investigating the attacks had ignored their assertions ?
    Don’t you know that these assertions gained considerable steam when Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said that, two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, he presented White House officials with a chart that depicted people affiliated with al-Qaeda, including lead hijacker Atta ?
    Regarding the Commission report, Weldon said : “I am appalled that the DoD IG would expect the American people to actually consider this a full and thorough investigation… I question their motives and the content of the report, and I reject the conclusions they have drawn.”
    Then, don’t you know – perhaps have you forgotten – that Ms Sibel Edmonds tried to blow the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who allegedly orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, but was under two gagging orders that forbid her from testifying in court or mentioning the names of the people or the countries involved ? That the FBI illegally refused the release of their agent Robert Wright’s 500-page ” Fatal Betrayals of the Intelligence Mission”, and has even refused to turn the manuscript over to Senator Shelby, vice-chairman of the joint intelligence committee charged with investigating America’s 9/11 intelligence failures ?
    And what about the strongly disturbing Pentagon’s enigma : the wholly desintegrated, vaporized, annihilated ghostlike plane (that weighed 80 Tons) ?
    Don’t you think, Mr Mr Hillel Neuer, that these statements and the corresponding facts must be seriously taken in account ?

    With regards, dear Mr Hillel Neuer.

    Patrick Lafourcade
    (french, living in the vicinity of Pondicherry, Tamil-Nadu – INDIA)

  • The evidence of 911 being a “black ops” job is overwhelming.
    The secrecy of the MANHATTAN project was never breached- yes, it IS possible to accomplish a massive covert operation with hundreds of people involved and keep it secret. Of course, the Mossad agent who blurted out “our purpose was to document the event” is likely a black sheep in his organization nowadays.
    The Pentagon was most like hit by a “bunker buster” missile.
    Even IF a 747 HAD hit the Pentagon, it would not have breached even the first 3′ thick reinforced concrete wall. See the myriad of Youtube videos showing planes on rocket sleds slamming into concrete barriers. Barely a scratch to be found on the wall after a collision. The planes -shredded. And the WTC towers 1 & 2 for sure shredded the airplanes. 90% of the fuel burned off almost instantly. And on and on and on.
    I simply can not understand why at least one (or more) of our house and congress members do not make the actual history of 911 based on the evidence a cause celebre. What is needed is someone to
    stans up on the House or Senate floor and say ” In my estimation, the official 911 story is a lie, and I will do whatever it takes to expose the truth, no matter what the cost may be to me personally or politically. Sad, even Kucinich, who likely knows better, will not bold such. True, someone having the courage to question the official story would likely not get re-elected.

  • It would take one more life time for Mr Richard Falk to understand
    each of the countless attacks he has had to face as regards his
    expertise on the issue of israeli-palestinian conflict.
    However, since he is considered to be an expert by the UN Human Rights
    Council he get his next 3 years automatic extention since he is an acknowledged expert.

Leave a Reply