To: Prof. Mortimer Sellers
Univesity of Baltimore
Faculty of Law
17 August 2006
Dear Prof. Sellers,
I bought and read the most interesting book Universal Human Rights, which you edited with David Reidy. It includes fascinating articles on the nature of human rights. As someone who has published a number of articles dealing with human rights and greatly interested in continuing work, particularly with regard to transnational (or extraterritorial)
human rights obligations, I will most probably refer to some of the articles in the book.
There is one particular issue that I wish to raise with you concerning the articles, but having little relation to human rights questions.It is the issue of the events of 9/11.
On p. 168-9, Larry May brings up the issue of Zacarias Moussaoui, a person allegedly linked to the events of 9/11.The entire section dealing with this man is based on the official conspiracy theory peddled by the Bush Administration regarding 19 Muslims who allegedly hijacked four aircraft and committed the atrocities.It is now increasingly obvious that this conspiracy theory is not even a theory but a web of lies which will cost its creators their heads if things will evolve as they have in the last 12 months. There is simply no shred of evidence underlying the official conspiracy theory. In addition, a mountain of undisputed evidence suggests that the twin towers (and WTC 7) where demolished by explosives. These facts, compounded by the reluctance of the US administration to even investigate the mass murder of 9/11 and initiate a public inquiry, is more than adequate prima facie evidence to demand a truly independent inquiry – totally independent of the US establishment – into this mass murder.As the main suspect is the US administration, any inquiry must be carried out by parties totally independent of the US state.
Similar assumptions are made by Stephen Nathanson in his article (p.193) and in Jonathan Schonscheck's article (p. 209 et al).
My concern is that a book containing such unsubstantiated claims ? as those regarding 9/11 – might cast a shadow on the credibility of the authors and indirectly on your credibility.
I urge you, therefore, to reflect upon these observations and attempt to undo any damage which might ensue from the above.
Mortimer Sellers answered on 17 August 2006
Thank you, Elias, for your kind words about my book.
Sometimes it is easier to agree on principles than on facts. I myself have been persuaded, as I think that you may also eventually be persuaded, by the facts laid out in the detailed 9/11 report ? but even if you are not persuaded, I am glad that you are considering the principles reflected in the book, which are separable, as you rightly observe, from any particular view of whst happened on 9/11/2001.