A Rush to Judgment in Argentine Bomb Case?

[Judi Lynn]

A Rush to Judgment in Argentine Bomb Case?

February 7, 2015


The mysterious death of an Argentine prosecutor has whipped up new suspicions around the case of who bombed the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) in 1994 and whether there was an official cover-up, but the evidence on both counts remains dubious or discredited, says Gareth Porter.

By Gareth Porter

The evidence already available about Argentine Prosecutor Alberto Nisman’s death from a gunshot to the head creates a strong presumption that he was murdered. He was about to present publicly his accusation that President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner and her foreign minister, Hector Timerman, conspired to absolve Iran of the 1994 AMIA bombing and lift the Interpol red notices on the accused Iranians.

And it was Nisman’s 2006 request for the arrest of six former senior Iranian officials for the bombing that prompted his push for those red notices. In the context of Argentine political culture, with its long experience of impunity for crimes committed by the powerful, the circumstances of his death have led to a general conviction that the government must have been behind his murder.

But there is good reason to be cautious about that assumption. Nisman’s case against Kirchner was problematic. The central accusation in his affidavit, made 96 times, according to press accounts, was that Kirchner and Timerman had sought to revoke the Interpol arrest warrants against the former Iranian officials.

But Ronald K. Noble, the secretary general of Interpol for 15 years until last November, denied Nisman’s accusation. Noble declared, “I can say with 100 percent certainty, not a scintilla of doubt, that Foreign Minister Timerman and the Argentine government have been steadfast, persistent and unwavering that the Interpol’s red notices be issued, remain in effect and not be suspend or removed.”

Noble’s denial raises an obvious question: Why would the Kirchner government, knowing that Nisman’s main claim could be easily refuted, have any reason to kill him on the eve of the presentation of his case? Why give those seeking to discredit the government’s policy on the AMIA bombing the opportunity to shift the issue from the facts of the case to the presumption of officially sponsored assassination?

More:
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/02/07/a-rush-to-judgment-in-argentine-bomb-case/

[forest444]

1. The U.S. has Fox News

Last edited Sun Feb 8, 2015, 10:13 PM - Edit history (2)

Argentina has Clarín - and they are none too pleased with the 2009 anti-trust laws that dashed their hopes for monopolies on internet, phone, and media services in Argentina.

Moreover, they and their army of "investigative journalists" and talking heads have always been the most reluctant to discuss any hypotheses that did not place blame for the AMIA or Embassy bombings squarely on Iran; other publications - even the right-wing Noticias news magazine - haven't been nearly so doctrinaire. I should add that only the DAIA (the governing body that oversees AMIA) endorsed Nisman's work; victims' rights groups had been calling for his impeachment and prosecution for years for callous disregard of the investigation of the sake of parroting the discredited official line.

The fact remains that not only no evidence has been found of such a plot in 20 years, but that what little "evidence" had been proffered had to be withdrawn for having been fabricated. The few articles of faith both Clarín and the Nisman office have insisted on, such as the white van and the crater, have also been proven imaginary - the first by forensics (who took purported pieces of said van to a lab 20 years ago, only to be told they were from 2 or 3 different cars), and the second by sheer photographic evidence.

People lie, but photos do not - and thousands of photos were taken at the time by scores of different news media and individuals. They clearly show no crater, and that the blast each time was centered in the building. Moreover, both the AMIA and Embassy were located in narrow, heavily built-up streets. None of the many surrounding buildings were destroyed, as would have to happen in a car bomb in a narrow street that takes out a 10-story building. This is true even of those with elaborate façades, such as the ornate Bencich Building facing the Embassy to the north. In fact only two suffered more than cosmetic damage: the small, century-old parochial school in front of the Embassy, whose roof collapsed but whose walls stood (would have been obliterated by a car bomb); and the AMIA's twin (reinforced concrete) building to the right, which exhibited a gaping hole inside the retaining wall shared with its ill-fated neighbor - a sure sign of an interior blast.

Witnesses lie, but scars do not. Even then Nisman's version only contained the few affidavits that squared with the car bomb theory - including one of a lady who claimed to see a "suspicious Middle Easterner", but only after being coached to that effect (there are several million people of Middle-Eastern heritage in Argentina, mostly Sepharadi Jews and Lebanese Christians).

He rejected testimony, however, from a repairman who was working under the motor of his old work truck when the blast took place. The elusive "van" would have necessarily been parked within a few feet of this poor man, and yet he survived with only the scarring on the side of his body facing the blast. This would have had to be a miracle straight out of the Old Testament, had the blast taken place on the street.

And the bomb forensics? Engineers who were commissioned to perform the very first forensic tests in both cases affirmed the obvious: that the blasts took place inside the buildings (their testimony was - you guessed it - excluded from any reports).

Truth is easy to understand once it's discovered, Galileo wrote.

The point is to discover it.

[Judi Lynn]

2. Outstanding information you've placed here, forest444.

What a shame our own corporate media had to dig so hard to bury it to spare the US public from having to think about it! That might eat into our time shopping, and buying houses and cars, etc.

The facts are mind-boggling. It would have taken a tremendous effort to get all of that information safely out of the way, so people could get on with their ability to look for the "right" culprits.

So much new information to think about. I am so glad you posted this. We need to know.