The people themselves may petition a court to convene a grand jury to investigate Bush's corrupt administration. Such a panel will have the power of the subpoena and the indictment.It's not just 911 that such a panel might investigate. An overwhelming number of those favoring Bush's impeachment say that there is "plenty" to warrant Bush's removal from the office he seized.
But, given the recalcitrance of Congress, how are "the people" to proceed? I recommend the following handbook for the would-be activist: Facts About Grand Juries
In the year 2005, a growing majority of Americans were not only opposing the disastrous war against Iraq, they were opposing Bush on almost every issue from illegal government wiretapping to this government's planned theft of Social Security. It was in that year that a majority of Americans said that they supported the impeachment of George W. Bush. Even fewer support Dick Cheney. Others oppose impeachment and removing Bush simply because it would leave something even worse in his stead: Dick Cheney.
As I write this, Newsweek asks How Low Can He Go?
President Bush registers the lowest approval rating of his presidency—making him the least popular president since Nixon—in the new NEWSWEEK Poll.It's been some two years and nothing has been done.
June 21, 2007 - In 19 months, George W. Bush will leave the White House for the last time. The latest NEWSWEEK Poll suggests that he faces a steep climb if he hopes to coax the country back to his side before he goes. In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush’s approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.
How frustrating it must be for thousands of bloggers, activists, journalists and writers to raise the issue of war crimes and high treason knowing that the odds of anything being done by officialdom are slim to none. Too often I am asked: you may be right but what the hell can we do about it? Too often I am left advising people to educate and agitate. At a time when not only the White House but Congress itself seems complicit in the ongoing war crime in Iraq, my answers are inadequate. Indeed, what can be done when the House of Representatives will not adequately investigate 911 let alone begin impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush.
On the other hand, a grand jury investigating the Bush White House would have sweeping powers to define the scope of its own investigation and the power of the subpoena to back it up. For example, Michael Moore wants the images made by hundreds of cameras trained on the Pentagon released. It would clear up the question: what did strike the Pentagon. Only a guilty government would not want you to know. It occurs to me that a Grand Jury could simply demand those items. Failure to comply is a crime.
Of course, Bushies will cite "national security" as did Nixon in Watergate. Bush prefers brinkmanship and, thus far, the Democrats have always backed down. But a Grand Jury is not the Congress. It does not have to stand for re-election. Would Bush really prefer to stonewall knowing that the issue would go straight to the Supreme Court? Would Bush risk a purely legal decision on the merits of the case?
In most instances, grand juries investigate issues brought to them by a prosecutor. In those cases, charges are returned in an indictment. Some states allow grand juries to act on their own. In those cases, charges are returned in what is called a "presentment". A presentment has the same legal effect and weight as an indictment, that is, both initiate a criminal case.
I want to know why a Federal Grand Jury was not convened to investigate 911 in the first place. Never mind! I know why! Bushco had a cover story to peddle. A real investigation would have only muddied the water. It would have delayed the onset of a war that Bush was hellbent and desperate to wage on behalf of his sponsors. Getting Bush out of the Oval Office is a matter of very real urgency.
Unless every judge in every state, in every county, in every town or city is crooked or, in other ways, bought and paid for by Bush's crooked gang, there may be a way to convene a Grand Jury that will fully investigate the events of 911 and bring charges against administration officials who may have facilitated or helped plan it. Simply, the people may petition a judge to convene a grand jury.
The time has come to brush up on some basics, in this case, the Grand Jury system. Here is a great link: Using a Grand Jury to Investigate the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks. What is often called a "runaway" Grand Jury could be useful right now. As pointed out in the article, Federal grand juries have already played central roles in the investigations of the Oklahoma City bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and the bombing of two US embassies in Africa.
Grand juries are typically summoned by a court when an attorney general or a district attorney’s motion is granted by the chief judge to empanel the body. But a court may also summons a grand jury upon its own motion and grand jurors are summoned from the same pool as trial jurors.
The point being --the people may petition a court to convene a grand jury. Here's an excerpt from just such a petition:Abortion-Rights Opponents File Petition For Grand Jury To Investigate Death Of Woman Who Received Abortion At Kansas Clinic
Abortion-rights opponents on Friday submitted a petition with 7,754 local signatures to a Sedgwick County, Kan., court to convene a grand jury to investigate the death of a woman who died three days after undergoing an abortion at the Women's Health Care Services clinic in Wichita, Kan., the AP/Wichita Eagle reports (Hegeman, AP/Wichita Eagle, 4/7). Kansas law allows a grand jury to be formed within 60 days of a petition filed with a state district court if the petition has at least 100 more signatures than 2% of the number of people in the county who voted in the most recent gubernatorial election.
"We, the undersigned qualified electors of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, petition the Court to immediately call a Grand Jury to convene in Oklahoma County for the purpose of conducting a thorough investigation into all aspects of the operations of the Police Department of Midwest City, Oklahoma; and, in addition to investigate into the offices, affairs, and conduct of the City Manager, Mayor, and City Council of Midwest City, Oklahoma; and, in addition, to investigate into any and all other matters called to the attention of the Grand Jury."From the same case:
14 We cannot determine as a matter of law that the petition for grand jury is a witch hunt based upon speculation or conjecture by the circulators and signers of the petition, nor can we carte blanche impugn their motive. This is the function of the grand jury. While the grand jury may, after investigation, return indictments, ouster proceedings, or otherwise make critical written reports as to the condition and operation of these offices, they may on the other hand submit a complimentary report on those officials and their offices. In any event, the discretion and authority lies with the grand jury as an inquisitorial body.Grand Juries typically meet in secret and there have been instances in which "runaway grand juries" abused their power and authority. But it was a runaway grand jury in the 1930s that investigated widespread mob corruption in New York and returned a number of bona fide indictments against mafia bosses. Recently, a grand jury in California almost closed down a county when it indicted almost every member of the government.
Additional resources:UPI/Zogby Poll: Majority give Bush Negative Ratings on Keeping U.S. Safe from Terrorism
But half of Americans believe Bush Administration has allowed security measures to trump personal freedoms
More than half of Americans give President Bush 55% negative ratings on his performance in keeping the United States safe from terrorism and give the Department of Homeland Security a similar negative rating (56%) on its efforts. Nearly half of Americans (49%) believe the Bush administration has tipped the balance between personal security and personal freedom too far towards security, depriving the American people of too many freedoms, a new UPI/Zogby Interactive poll shows.
Slightly more than half (53%) said they are against the government having the ability to temporarily suspend federal privacy laws to enable agencies to better share counter-terrorism information, including the personal data of American citizens. Americans are divided over the Terrorism Surveillance Program. Half said they have a favorable view of the TSP under which the National Security Agency can monitor the international telephone and email communications of American citizens without a warrant if the communication includes and individual suspected of having ties to a terrorist organization like al-Qaeda. But nearly as many (45%) said they have a unfavorable view of the program. More than half (55%) said the TSP is a necessary and legal tool to protect Americans against terrorist activity, while 42% disagree.
The interactive survey of 5,932 adults nationwide was conducted from April 13-16, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.3 percentage points.
- The Atlantic Free Press: 13 State Democratic Parties Demand Impeachment
- A Widening Chasm Between House Democrats and the Voters on Impeachment
- Peace Network More Vocal
- Holtzman: The Impeachment of George W. Bush
- Impeach Bush TV
- Veterans for Peace Vets for Peacecalled for the impeachment of George Bush
- FAQ's About Grand Juries
- A question of complicity
- 9/11: The BCCI Connection
- Financial Scams and the Bush Family
- Bin Laden's Brother-in-law Had Close Ties to Bush
- Movement to Impeach Bush
- Impeach Bush AND Congress
The Existentialist Cowboy
Conservative Lies
liberals
Why Conservatives Hate America
Democrats
Bush
Spread the word:
27 comments:
Ok, where do we sign up? Let's roll.
OHHH,YES I AM WITH JOYCE LETS ROLL JOE HAYDEN
Jocelyn and anonymous,
Start by forwarding this article to as many local activists as you can. That would include your local Democratic chairman. If you know a lawyer who can't stand what Bush has done to this nation, enlist his/her help in drafting a petition and in locating a judge who would accept a petition.
As far as I know there are no rules, especially about how many names you must have. In one of the cases cited in my article, only 7,000 names resulted in getting a judge to empanel a grand jury.
Jurisdiction is another issue. I know of no reason why such a petition should be limited to Federal judges. However, in the case of New York in the 1930's, the so-called "runaway" grand jury appears to have limited its scope to local crime bosses.
If a judge should feel that local residents are harmed by Bush's crimes, I see no reason why that judge would not be able to convene the grand jury and give it sweeping powers to investigate.
Power to the people!
Len,
on another legal note, could a massive class action on the republican party be an option? Let's face it, that is the origin of all the corruption and negative impact on everyone's concept and current reality, or lack there of: "Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness" Not only in this country, certainly in the international realm, also.
Because, apparently...they will never "get it"... just listen to their candidates in the presidential race, or the rank and file republican on the legislative floor, day in and day out. They continue to pander to big business monies, and remain stead fast in their errors and regressions...Not only ignoring the working people, but in constant contrast to the needs of everyday citizens, Bush's stem cell agenda yet again proves this out, idealogs and party favors over the average American.
Not, to mention the propaganda just gets torqued up another notch, as they are still able to rally a sizable base. I only hope they choke on their own conflicting strategies concerning immigration policy. It is really beyond comprehension, and it will be entirely up to a grass roots contingency, as far as I can see to rid America of this scourge.
After we Americans wise up and get rid of these bad apples, we then need to focus on the parts of the democratic party that need a good whacking.
benmerc
Benmerc,
I like the idea of suing the ass off the GOP! Sue the bastards. I would love to run that idea by some of those hotshot plaintiff lawyers I used to know down in Houston.
Ronald Krist, are you reading this? If so, contact the Democrats and let them know that you want to sue the GOP for at least one half of the money they are going to raise to try to put another crook in the White House.
As my dear fiance has informed me, the GOP would spend half that money on legal fees anyway. So, Mr Krist, raise the amount to be sued for accordingly.
It shouldn't take a legal genius (although Krist is most probably one) to figure how GOP policies have HARMED individuals and classes in very real and tangible ways.
As I've stated numerous times: the GOP has crossed the line. Conspiracies to commit crimes and harm people in the process is NOT protected free speech. The GOP is a criminal conspiracy. Sue them and/or lock the bastards up!
You people are crazy. The Republican party and Democrat party are the same. they're both a bunch of crooks.If you're going to sue, sue the whole Congress and
senate.
the only one in government who wants to change anything is Ron Paul.Open your eyes wide, people!
Dennis said...
You people are crazy. The Republican party and Democrat party are the same. they're both a bunch of crooks.
The Democrats get smaller corporate bribes than the GOP.
More seriously, a lawsuit must demonstrate that tangible harm as the result of a deliberate actions taken by Bush. You can't sue the Democrats this time 'round because they haven't done anything.
If you're going to sue, sue the whole Congress and senate.
Now THAT I could support.
the only one in government who wants to change anything is Ron Paul.Open your eyes wide, people!
I know Ron Paul. He's one of two or three honest politicians. I am not sure, however, that he can lead this nation out of its morass. When Paul eschews the GOP, I will reconsider.
FuzzFlash the Flummoxed sez...
Len, There must be thousands of hot-shot up and coming lawyers who would jump at the chance of mounting a class action against BushCo. Why havn't any availed themselves of the opportunity to get the needed signatures and go for it?
If Nader is gonna be a fly in the realpolitikal ointment again, this would be a dream way to mount his campaign, or are potential plaintiffs too shit scared of the consequences if they fail? I just don't capische. Are there not a few thousand Americans prepared to scratch a petition to save what's left of what was once a great nation?
Maybe one of our lawyerly regulars could pose the question of John Dean at Findlaw. I'd try it myself,but I only speak pigeon Legal.
To sum up,
Manuel to Senor Fawlty: Que?!
Getting a Grand Jury to investigate 9/11, as the likes of you and Michael Moore have suggested, is a very good idea, since it would dissipate once and for all the notions that a jetliner didn’t crash into the Pentagon, or that the WTC collapsed because of a controlled demolition, or that 9/11 was a White House inside job.
A Grand Jury would, for starters, take into account that at least 130 named people said publicly that they either saw a jetliner hit the Pentagon, or saw it moments before it did so. It is of course entirely possible that some of those 130 people might have wanted to have their 15 minutes of fame by falsely saying they saw a jetliner, but it’s extremely unlikely that ALL would have lied about this.
I’m also not aware of anyone having said they saw a missile hit the building. I have, for what its worth, seen those videos of something hitting the Pentagon, but it’s too blurred to make any conclusions. Eyewitness accounts are the way to go, and, as I’ve just said, there are at least 130 of them.
Therefore it would be reasonable to conclude that a jetliner did crash into the Pentagon. So there’s no reason to suppose that photos showing the remains of various aircraft parts were doctored or otherwise falsified. And so there’s no reason to suppose the cell-phone calls received by various relatives and friends of the passengers, saying the aircraft had been hijacked, were not genuine.
A Grand Jury would know that the crashes into the Pentagon and into the WTC, and their attendant damage and collapse, were anomalous to scientific experiments which can’t be repeated. Therefore the engineers who say the towers couldn’t have collapsed from the plane’s impact, and those who say the impact was the cause, are merely speculating, as are also those who say the hole in the Pentagon couldn’t have been caused by a jetliner, and those who say the hole was big enough.
One can only speculate about the results of a non-repeatable experiment.
The notion that the WTC was fitted with explosives was fuelled by an apparently incriminating remark Larry Silverstein made to the BBC. It was some months later when his company, because of all the insinuations, made a statement explaining why he made this remark. First of all, why would he incriminate himself on the BBC? And if he accidentally did so, we would expect him to immediately issue a plausible explanation, like a slip of the tongue, to explain why he said what he said. His waiting a long, long time to issue an explanation because of rumours and insinuations, is not the action of someone with a guilty mind.
Also, Larry Silverman was recalling what he thought he said on the day of 9/11. Because memories are notoriously unreliable we cannot know that he did actually say what he thought he had said on that fateful day. Whatever he did say, was doubtless simply an innocent slip of the tongue on a day when all was confusion and mayhem.
In the absence of any plausible evidence that the WTC was wired for explosives, we have no alternative but to assume that the crashes of the jetliners into them caused them to collapse.
There are other off-the-cuff remarks that those who think 9/11 was an inside job have seized on, such as Rumsfeld saying something about a missile when walking amidst the debris of the Pentagon. And there was Bush saying he saw the first aircraft hit the towers when he obviously couldn’t have. These sorts of remarks can be put down to the fact that we, all of us, say things that don’t make sense, wrong from time to time, especially in times of mass confusion and hysteria, as was the case on the day of 9/11.
George Bush is notorious for getting things mixed up. If he’d had a guilty mind, he or his staff would have issued a statement immediately afterwards explaining plausibly the error of what he’d said. Bush not only didn’t do that, but he repeated the same thing some days later – hardly the action of someone with a guilty mind.
That Bush had apparently not been told about the first crash before he went into that schoolroom is certainly curious. But it doesn’t mean that 9/11 was a White House inside job.
As to White House obfuscations and lies, and its putting obstacles in the way of the 9/11 Commission doing its job, this can be put down to the White House not wanting yet more of its gross incompetence on that day coming to public light. Of course it could be because the White House didn’t want its connivance in 9/11 coming to public light, but, again, where’s the proof that the White House connived in 9/11? It’s all just speculation.
For the White House to have conspired to bring about 9/11 would have involved many thousands of people inside the USA, and in various countries throughout the middle-east. Has anyone inside the belly of the beast of any government or security agency or military anywhere, come forth with insider information that they heard or saw something they weren’t supposed to, and leaked it, even anonymously, to any news agency, whose editor would drool saliva at the prospect of scooping any such momentous information? I’ve never heard anything like this? Has anyone?
There are, amazingly, in these cynical times still a small core of principled people inside any organization, including CIA or military or government, who would come forth and tell of all they saw or heard, if they suspected their boss, or whoever, was engaged in anything fishy, let alone the enormity of facilitating an attack upon the United States. Enough of them came forward in regard to the skulduggeries respecting the Iraq invasion and its planning. So why haven’t we seen the same thing in regard to the alleged White House planning for 9/11?
The obvious answer is there was no such conspiracy, and that the luminaries in the White House were as taken aback by 9/11 as was everyone else, and that Al Qaida was solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as it proclaimed it was.
Case closed.
Jeremy, some of your arguments are not sustainable:
"And so there’s no reason to suppose the cell-phone calls received by various relatives and friends of the passengers, saying the aircraft had been hijacked, were not genuine." There were phone calls from all the planes. Some appear to be reasonable but others (esp. alleged mobile phones from Flight 93) are unlikely given that the technology for making such calls was only developed by Qualcomm in 2004(!) An explanation is needed.
"A Grand Jury would know that the crashes into the Pentagon and into the WTC, and their attendant damage and collapse, were anomalous to scientific experiments which can’t be repeated." -- true but not relevant. You wouldn't want to repeat the Challenger space shuttle accident but you can still do a serious scientific investigation with the available evidence. Same story with the Pentagon and the WTC buildings. Having the government selectively share evidence with their appointed scientists and then refusing to make primary evidence available to independant researchers fails the process of scientific assessment and scientific credibility. You don't get to keep your data behind locked doors and call your findings 'scientific'.
"One can only speculate about the results of a non-repeatable experiment. " -- not true. The Challenger is a good example of this but there are scores of others (eg the demise of the dinosaurs, the historical record of ice ages, the burial of Pompei etc). Computer and statistical simulations of any number of phenomena are used all the time and are highly sophisticated and extremely reliable when done properly [I know, I've got a degree in mathematical statistics]. There's a lot science can determine from limited evidence. In fact, science deals with partial information most of the time. The results are not "speculation" (with the unstated suggestion that all explanations are equally valid so we should shut up and accept the 'nice' one from the 'nice' 9/11 Commission.)
"That Bush had apparently not been told about the first crash before he went into that schoolroom is certainly curious. But it doesn’t mean that 9/11 was a White House inside job." -- Bush WAS told. According to reporters traveling with him he had been first informed of a hijacked plane about 8.30am, and told of the 8.48am crash at the WTC north tower immediately after it occurred. There are at least four journalist accounts that Bush was informed of the first hijacking before he even arrived at the school. (Bush’s limousine contained advanced communications systems connecting him to all defence agencies. And Richard Clarke in his book, Against All Enemies, records that the Secret Service monitored FAA radar screens in real time).
"For the White House to have conspired to bring about 9/11 would have involved many thousands of people inside the USA, and in various countries throughout the middle-east." At its height the Iran Contra drug trafficking network supposedly engaged 3,000 people yet Congress was kept in the dark. Moreover, it's not necessary to posit an over-arching conspiracy with full knowledge by all of the participants. The CIA brought many islamists into the US for military training (do you know about Ali Mohammed?...I thought not. He was bin Ladin's right hand man, a US Ranger, US resident, an FBI and CIA informant). There are established drug trafficking and criminal links to the US leadership. Various Israeli companies were connected to Boston airport security etc. NORAD failed to respond likely because real hijackings were confounded with simulated ones as part of military exercises etc.
"The obvious answer is there was no such conspiracy."
So here are some "easy" questions I will post for you below Jeremy since you are apparently satisfied with the official explanation. See how you go. Take it slow. No need to answer all of them, any one or two will do....Can't answer any of them? ...(I can give you 50 more if they're too hard for you?).... I thought not.
"Case closed." You might think so but others don't - and for good reasons. There are American citizens wanting answers. And scientists wanting access to primary data on the plane crashes and building collapses. The US is a democracy accountable to it's people, so they have every moral and legal right to demand further inquiries. The case is "closed" only when the US people say it is. And right now, they want the answers.
Here you go, Jeremy. See if you can explain some of these for me:
(1) Why was Bush allowed to stay in an unsecured location for over half an hour on 9/11 when less than a month earlier at the G8 summit Bush had been warned of an attack against him by hijacked aircraft?
(2) What the five Israelis were doing filming the WTC collapses on 9/11 and high-fiving each other?
(3) How is it that Marwan al-Shehhi and Mohammed Atta both got I-20 (student visas) to attend Huffman Aviation flight school and chose that particular school over 200 others in Florida and paid twice the usual fees with no questions asked by the management?
(4) Or how Huffman was apparently able to run regular drug flights into the US that could only reasonably have been occuring with the tacit approval of one or more US regulatory agencies?
(5) Or how is it that a plane with Homeland Security look-alike logos was captured in Mexico on (10 April 2006) with 5.5 tons of cocaine and happened to belong to a US defense related company with its sole other aircraft housed at - wait for it - Huffman Aviation!
(6) Why did Don Rumsfeld - as the US official tasked with responding to Russian nukes within minutes - only get to his assigned duty station at 10:30am after the 9/11 attacks were all over?
(7) Can you explain the evidence of Norma Minetta before the 9/11 Commission that VP Cheney was monitoring Flight 77 and appeared to allow it to approach the Pentagon unimpeded? And why has his video evidence been lost?
(8) How is it that no hijacked plane can fly around unattended over Frankfurt, London or Tokyo for even 10 minutes, yet 4 hijacked planes could fly around unattended over the US Eastern seaboard on 9/11 for nearly 80 minutes?
(9) What were the war games on 9/11 all about and which ones involved simulated commercial airline hijackings?
(10) Exactly how did Osama do the anthrax attacks? And how did he know to send the harmless variety to Judith Miller?
(11) How come the BBC was able to publicly announce the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell, and with the WTC 7 building standing proudly behind the reporter while they made their announcement?
(12) Why has the BBC lost ALL the original recordings of its output for the entire day on 9/11?
Remember, Jeremy, I can give you 50 more if they're too hard for you....
Sorry, Norman Mineta. I didn't mean to give you a quick sex change.
BTW -- it was Rumsfeld who referred to the missile and he also said that Flight 93 was shot down. He's on record.
Fuzzflash sez..
Fair dinkum, Damien, your rhetoric, research and prose quality have been coruscating this year. Have you been undergoing temporal lobe enhancement or is it that clean border air?
Damien said: "So here are some "easy" questions I will post for you below Jeremy since you are apparently satisfied with the official explanation. See how you go. Take it slow. No need to answer all of them, any one or two will do....Can't answer any of them? ...(I can give you 50 more if they're too hard for you?).... I thought not."
Be fascinating to see if Jeremy can handle the pace, although he does appear to be of sterner stuff than Frisco Christopher i.
(Ahem)....over to you, Jeremy.
Len, I wanna banana!!
"... there must be thousands of hot-shot up and coming lawyers who would jump at the chance of mounting a class action against BushCo. Why havn't any availed themselves of the opportunity to get the needed signatures and go for it?"
Grammar needs a clean up Fuzzflash. I've been over battling the Libertarians. You NEVER win with them. Cheers.
...and I've been over here quite a bit. Lots of fun.
Jeremy said...
Getting a Grand Jury to investigate 9/11, as the likes of you and Michael Moore have
suggested, is a very good idea, since it would dissipate once and for all the notions that a jetliner didn’t crash into the Pentagon, or that the WTC collapsed because of a controlled demolition, or that 9/11 was a White House inside job.
A real investigation will prove what a real investigation will prove.
A Grand Jury would, for starters, take into account that at least 130 named people said publicly that they either saw a jetliner hit the Pentagon, or saw it moments before it did so.
A grand jury will likewise balance those accounts with the photographic footage that was confiscated but which will be released to a "real" investigation. That film will most certainly depict something but NOT an airliner. In any case, the film will either confirm or discount the eyewitnesses you speak of.
I’m also not aware of anyone having said they saw a missile hit the building. I
What you are NOT aware of is NOT evidence.
Don Rummmies remarks are as follows:
Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.
Source: US Department of Defense
Therefore it would be reasonable to conclude that a jetliner did crash into the Pentagon.
It is never reasonable to come to a conclusion without evidence.
There is NO physical, material evidence to support the official theory that an airliner hit the Pentagon.
So there’s no reason to suppose that photos showing the remains of various aircraft parts were doctored or otherwise falsified.
What photos? If you have photos of airliner wreckage, post them and prove it. Produce the pedigree. Until then, I contend that there are no photos of airliner wreckage at the Pentagon simply because there was no airliner. Occam's Razor again.
And so there’s no reason to suppose the cell-phone calls received by various relatives and friends of the passengers, saying the aircraft had been hijacked, were not genuine
Those calls most certainly are not even evidence supporting the theory that an airliner crashed into the Pentagon. They most certainly do not prove that an airliner hit the pentagon.
A Grand Jury would know that the crashes into the Pentagon and into the WTC, and their attendant damage and collapse, were anomalous to scientific experiments which can’t be repeated.
Grand juries only know what a prosecutor or a witness puts in front of them. The rules of evidence will apply.
But your assertion is nonsense, for a start. There is no reason to believe that a competent grand jury would approach a REAL investigation with such an obvious bias.
Therefore the engineers who say the towers couldn’t have collapsed from the plane’s impact, and those who say the impact was the cause, are merely speculating, as are also those who say the hole in the Pentagon couldn’t have been caused by a jetliner, and those who say the hole was big enough.
The melting point of steel is NOT a subject of speculation. It is a matter of empirical fact. The OFFICIAL conspiracy theory cannot account for the observable fact that there was molten steel around the base of the collapsed towers when kerosene doesn't burn hot enough. It is an inconsistency in the official theory which posits that the buildings collapsed from the heat but cannot explain where sufficient heat came from.
Problem is, kerosene (jet fuel) cannot burn long enough or hot enough to melt steel. The official conspiracy theory is bullshit!
One can only speculate about the results of a non-repeatable experiment.
Just what experience did you have in mind? Try to melt steel several times with kerosene! Lemme know how many times you repeat that experiment. Lemme know how it works out.
The notion that the WTC was fitted with explosives was fuelled by an apparently incriminating remark Larry Silverstein made to the BBC.
Silverstein is on record ordering that Building 7 be "pulled". Silverstein would most certainly be in position to know whether or not HE ordered the building pulled.
It was some months later when his company, because of all the insinuations, made a statement explaining why he made this remark. First of all, why would he incriminate himself on the BBC?
He didn't change his story. In both instances, Silverstein confirms that the building was "pulled". The fact of the matter is this: Silverstein stated unambiguously on video tape that Building 7 was pulled! Indeed, it was pulled that very afternoon. That means that building 7 had been prepped in advance. Here's a link to a site that explains how much time it takes to perform the engineering studies and place the explosive for such neat, controlled demolition as was witnessed of Building 7.
Demolition blasters load explosives on several different levels of the building so that the building structure falls down on itself at multiple points. When everything is planned and executed correctly, the total damage of the explosives and falling building material is sufficient to collapse the structure entirely, so cleanup crews are left with only a pile of rubble.
In order to demolish a building safely, blasters must map out each element of the implosion ahead of time. The first step is to examine architectural blueprints of the building, if they can be located, to determine how the building is put together. Next, the blaster crew tours the building (several times), jotting down notes about the support structure on each floor. Once they have gathered all the raw data they need, the blasters hammer out a plan of attack. Drawing from past experiences with similar buildings, they decide what explosives to use, where to position them in the building and how to time their detonations. In some cases, the blasters may develop 3-D computer models of the structure so they can test out their plan ahead of time in a virtual world. --How Stuff Works
And if he accidentally did so, we would expect him to immediately issue a plausible explanation, like a slip of the tongue, to explain why he said what he said.
It was no slip of the tongue. Silverstein confirms the buildilng was pulled. And it was. Since it may take weeks or even months, in some cases, to "prep" a building for a controlled demolition, as Building 7 clearly was, seems to be proof that his statements in that regard were neither slips of the tongue, mistakes or lies. They were simply the truth of the matter.
His waiting a long, long time to issue an explanation because of rumors and insinuations, is not the action of someone with a guilty mind.
What explanation! I saw both. He confirms the building was pulled.
Also, Larry Silverman was recalling what he thought he said on the day of 9/11.
I saw it. Again, Silverstein confirms the building was pulled. Only Silverstein had the authority to authorize a "pull". It was pulled.
There are other off-the-cuff remarks that those who think 9/11 was an inside job have seized on, such as Rumsfeld saying something about a missile when walking amidst the debris of the Pentagon.
I get it...if it disproves YOUR Official conspiracy theory, it is an "off the cuff" remark. But it is a considered statement ONLY if it agrees with your preconceived notions and prejudices!!!!!
And there was Bush saying he saw the first aircraft hit the towers when he obviously couldn’t have. These sorts of remarks can be put down to the fact that we, all of us, say things that don’t make sense, wrong from time to time, especially in times of mass confusion and hysteria, as was the case on the day of 9/11.
Bush made those remarks on two occassions. His remarks are available on the White House website. You can find them on this blog, linked and quoted precisely on previous posts. They are not mere off the cuff remarks. They may very well be the truth but they are true if and only if the Bush White House had enough advance knowledge to rig up a closed circuit TV system. The Bush White House knew the attack plan in some detail and a camera was trained on the north tower in order to carry it via a closed circuit. I have discounted the alternative: CLAIRVOYANCE!
George Bush is notorious for getting things mixed up.
Bush is no innocent by virtue of his being stupid. Bush gave the game away. Occam's razor again. All is explained if you accept that Bush really did see the first plane hit. And if he really saw the first plane hit, then the White House had advance, perhaps guilty, knowledge.
If he’d had a guilty mind, he or his staff would have issued a statement immediately afterwards explaining plausibly the error of what he’d said. Bush not only didn’t do that, but he repeated the same thing some days later – hardly the action of someone with a guilty mind.
Bush's state of mind, in fact, his lack of "mind", bores me. It might be of interest to his defense attorney when he is charged with capital crimes.
That Bush had apparently not been told about the first crash before he went into that schoolroom is certainly curious. But it doesn’t mean that 9/11 was a White House inside job.
That's not what Bush said. Bush said on two occassions that he SAW the first plane, not that he was told about it.
As to White House obfuscations and lies, and its putting obstacles in the way of the 9/11 Commission doing its job, this can be put down to the White House not wanting yet more of its gross incompetence on that day coming to public light.
The only credible explanation for quashing bona fide investigations is this: one does not want the truth known. As for his reasons, Bush can explain it to a judge!
Of course it could be because the White House didn’t want its connivance in 9/11 coming to public light, but, again, where’s the proof that the White House connived in 9/11? It’s all just speculation.
I didn't speculate at all. My position is: investigate the shit out of it. If Bush as some 'splaining he would like to do, then that's between him, his defense attorney and the judge hearing the capital crimes case against him. I will abide by the decision of a fair trial! Will you?
For the White House to have conspired to bring about 9/11 would have involved many thousands of people inside the USA, and in various countries throughout the middle-east.
Or so you merely suppose! You speculation is not evidence one way or the other.
Has anyone inside the belly of the beast of any government or security agency or military anywhere, come forth with insider information that they heard or saw something they weren’t supposed to, and leaked it, even anonymously, to any news agency, whose editor would drool saliva at the prospect of scooping any such momentous information? I’ve never heard anything like this? Has anyone?
Have you ever heard of the "burden of proof"? Simply, "those who assert must prove". Bushco has put forward an "official conspiracy theory" The burden of proof is on whomever puts forward a theory, whomever makes an assertion. So far, there is absolutely no material evidence to support the official theory. NONE! NOT A SCRAP!
There are, amazingly, in these cynical times still a small core of principled people inside any organization, including CIA or military or government, who would come forth and tell of all they saw or heard, if they suspected their boss, or whoever, was engaged in anything fishy, let alone the enormity of facilitating an attack upon the United States. Enough of them came forward in regard to the skulduggeries respecting the Iraq invasion and its planning. So why haven’t we seen the same thing in regard to the alleged White House planning for 9/11?
Speculate all you want. I don't care! Show me the wreckage. Show me some evidence. Show me some proof! Tell it to a judge!
Case closed.
Well, you do have a sense of humor.
CASE OPEN!
The obvious answer is there was no such conspiracy
Didn't your logic prof tell you: you cannot prove a negative!
CASE STILL OPEN!
I am amazed at the gullibity of the American public. P.T. Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute.
FuzzFlash the Flummoxed sez...
Len, There must be thousands of hot-shot up and coming lawyers who would jump at the chance of mounting a class action against BushCo. Why havn't any availed themselves of the opportunity to get the needed signatures and go for it?
I would hope so. And I also hope I planted a seed. That story, by the way, got distributed very well. And, for the most part, it was received well.
Most people want a real investigation. This nation needs one. The JFK cover up is the beginning of the unraveling of the US. After JFK, we no longer had any confidence in anything told us by the government. It's hard to hold a society together under those conditions.
You are living in a fantasy if you think that any court will file criminal charges against President Bush. The Supreme Court will invalidate any such action:
PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM JUDICIAL DIRECTION
By the decision of the Court in Mississippi v. Johnson, in 1867, the President was placed beyond the reach of judicial direction, either affirmative or restraining, in the exercise of his powers, whether constitutional or statutory, political or otherwise, save perhaps for what must be a small class of powers that are purely ministerial. An application for an injunction to forbid President Johnson to enforce the Reconstruction Acts, on the ground of their unconstitutionality, was answered by Attorney General Stanberg, who argued, inter alia, the absolute immunity of the President from judicial process.
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-2/47-presidential-immunity.html
Read it and weep Cowboy.
Bush had received multiple foreign intelligence warnings that al Qaeda was planning attacks in the US using hijacked aircraft before 9/11. He had been given an intelligence briefing only a month earlier entitled "Bin Laden to Strike in the US," that contained a warning from the British government. When he entered Booker he knew a commercial airliner had flown into the North tower at 8:48am. He'd spoken to Condoleeza Rice and confirmed this. At 9:05 Andrew Card approached him and said: "A second plane has hit the second tower. America is under attack". Bush asked no questions and gave no orders. He sat there reading a children's book and talking about education policies (!) for another 25 minutes.
Bush was later asked what he was thinking at the time when Andrew Card spoke to him at 9.05: "I was concentrating on the program at this point, thinking about what I was going to say [about the plane crash]. Obviously, I felt it was an accident. I was concerned about it, but there were no alarm bells."
This was the second plane to crash that morning into one of the twin towers. Bush had been told about the first plane before entering the school and he has now just been told about a second plane crash. These comments by Bush are simply outrageous. No intelligent adult would consider plane crashes into both of the twin towers as being accidents - especially given the previous intelligence warnings. What are we to make of these remarks?
This sonofabitch knew what was going on.
The practical effect of Bush’s extended stay at the elementary school till 9.30am was to give credibility to the later unsatisfactory explanations for the failure of US air defenses on 911. He kept up his end while others supervised the killing. Use any expletives you like. They're not enough for this traitor!
Anonymous said...
You are living in a fantasy if you think that any court will file criminal charges against President Bush. The Supreme Court will invalidate any such action:
Here's the part you conveniently left out, sport:
“The Congress is the legislative department of the government; the President is the executive department. Neither can be restrained in its action by the judicial department; though the acts of both, when performed, are, in proper cases, subject to its cognizance.”
In other words, the restraint applies only in those cases in which the judicial branch might prevent a "President" from carrying out his Constitutional responsibilities. Committing war crimes and other atrocities is NOT a power granted to Bush by the Constitution. Sying on US citizens is NOT a power granted to Bush under the Constitution. Re-writing laws passed by Congress is NOT a power granted Bush by the Constitution.
If your interpretation of the law were, in any way, correct, the House O' Reps could no longer impeach a President; the Senate could no longer try him. Judge John Sirica could not have issued rulings with regard to "conspirators" under Nixon's orders. There would have been no need for Nixon's "cover up". At last, if your interpretation were correct, the office of Special Prosecutor would have been declared unconstitutional a long time ago. And Richard Nixon, who claimed that if the President did it it was legal, would have declared himself dictator.
Sorry, no banana!
BTW --I've got the case law on Presidential Immunity From Judicial Direction. Presidents --including GWB --are NOT above the law.
damien said...
Bush had received multiple foreign intelligence warnings that al Qaeda was planning attacks in the US using hijacked aircraft before 9/11. He had been given an intelligence briefing only a month earlier entitled "Bin Laden to Strike in the US," that contained a warning from the British government.
Good info, Damien. And it brings up another good point. Presidents cannot claim immunity from judicial direction in cases in which his FAILURE to perform his duty results in harm to the very sovereignty of the nation.
Immunity my ass!
I suspect Mussolini, likewise, claimed an Italian version "immunity from judicial direction". Fat lot o'good it did him when he was strung up by his feet.
Damien, just now getting around to your "indictment" of Bush. Brilliant, man!
Hi, Len,
Congratulations, Len, for one of the finest blogs on the Internet. You have done a great job!
I found your site because you have linked to my big band broadcast blog, The Palomar under your sidebar heading, "Resources." I appreciate your link, but it causes me a problem. I use "Who Links to Us" to track links to The Palomar, and your web site accounts for about half of all links to mine. I have to scroll through page after page of links from your web pages because of your single sidebar link.
Please do me a favor and remove the link in your sidebar to The Palomar.
Thank you, Len! I appreciate it.
Cordially,
George Spink
The Palomar
George, thanks for your post and the great music on your blog. Sorry about the links thing. No problem on this end. I have removed the link....but keep up the great work. That music is a joy to listen to.
Anyone interested can reach your blog here: http://thepalomar.blogspot.com/
By the way, that "text" URL above won't show up on "Who Links to Me" since it's not an "HREF".
Post a Comment