Bush: An "accessory before the fact" of Mass Murder

by Len Hart 

It's bad enough that those courageous enough to oppose Bush's rise to dictatorship are attacked and impugned by the right wing! That is to be expected. But the propagation of fallacies and nonsense by those who should know better is intolerable.

A recent 'editorial' by Buzzflash, which is ordinarily to be commended for keeping a watchful eye on Bush's nefarious machinations, seems to have completely missed the point with regard to the so-called '911 Truth Movement'.

This article may be considered an 'open letter' to Buzzflash where I respond to their comments in italics.

We have often taken issue with the 9/11 Truth Movement because it takes the fact that there are many unanswered questions about 9/11 and tries to answer them with often bizarre speculation.

---Conspiratorially Speaking: United Flight 93 and 9/11

  It is fallacious to refer to a movement of many with the word 'it'! There are many positions by many free thinking individuals throughout what is conveniently called the '911 Truth Movement'. To apply a single position to every person demanding a complete and unbiased investigation of a crime that was in fact never properly investigated is absurd, unfair and fallacious.

In the many papers that I have read by David Ray Griffin et al, the focus is primarily on the demonstrable 'holes', lies and fallacies that are found in various conspiracy theories put forward by Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, et al as well as the 'official account' put forward by the 911 Commission.

Certainly, some members of the '911 TruthMovement' have concluded that because only the Bush administration actively sought to cover up, prevent and in many instances quash investigations of 911, then it is reasonable to conclude that 911 was an inside job. Else --why cover it up? But to attribute that position to every Bush critic is unfair and fallacious.

It may be true to state that the so-called 'Truth Movement' began with Griffen's still un-refuted paper entitled:

The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True

Popular Mechanics and MSM propagandists tried to marginalize this paper because they could not refute it! Last time I checked, steel still will not melt or weaken at temperatures less than 2795ºF. The science upon which Griffin based his paper is simply beyond the meager intellectual capacity of idiots like Bill 0'Reilly to comprehend, let alone refute. Simply, if steel will not melt at kerosene fire temperatures, then the official theory of 911 is a monumental fraud! Photos of people walking around, waving distress flags, in the hole in the North Tower where some 10,000 gallons of jet fuel was said to have been burning is absolute and irrefutable proof that the fires were never hot enough nor did they last long enough to have brought down the towers.

Bushies might wish we would forget WTC7 about which Larry Silverstein himself said 'it was pulled'. Certainly, no airliner hit it. The dinky fires were unimpressive, less inflammatory than the rhetoric describing them. Even if the kerosene had damaged and caused the twin tower fires, that was not the case at WTC7. So --why did WTC7 collapse if not from dinky, unimpressive, fires here and there? Occam's Razor demands the common sense conclusion: it was 'pulled' and therefore prepared weeks, possibly months, in advance! Just as Silverstein said it was.

This bears repeating: if WTC7 was pulled, then the official conspiracy theory is nonsense.
The 'movement', therefore, deals with the gaping holes, fallacies, lies, and inconsistencies with the 'official conspiracy theory'. The 'movement' demands a complete, fair and competent investigation of the crime of 911 --an investigation that was, in fact, never begun.

911 was a crime still actively covered up by Bush. To conclude that because one demands a complete and thorough investigation of 911, he/she must, therefore, believe 911 to be an inside job is unfair and fallacious. In my case, I have concluded that 911 was, indeed, an inside job and for good reasons which I have outlined elsewhere. But it does not follow that because I so believe then everyone connected with a 'movement' is likewise convinced.

Buzzflash stated flatly that '911 was not an inside job', an obvious attempt to shift the burden of proof. The dictum in both logic and debate is: those who assert must prove! It is Bush who asserts the theory --the so-called 'official conspiracy theory'. The burden of proof is on Bush to prove it. It is Bush's job to prove the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory involving some 19 Arabs who were most certainly not capable of piloting any aircraft of any size, seizing control of four large airliners armed only with box cutters. Reams can be written in refutation of this absurd theory, but it is enough, here, to point out its absurdity on its face.

Whenever a 100 ton airliner crashes anywhere at anytime for any reason, there is left behind some 100 tons of debris. The debris found at the Pentagon could have been carted off in several hand-toted wheelbarrows. Airliners of any size do not vaporize nor do they pop into parallel universes, worm holes or rabbit holes. It's time to get fuckin' real, folks! Bushies think you are too stupid to get wise to them.

The Space Shuttle Columbia crashed into the Stratosphere at some 24,000 MPH, yet left identifiable debris and body parts over three states. Unlike Flight 93, that wreckage was recovered and identified. It did not get sucked into another dimension nor did it shape-shift into a tiny hole.

...but it was something that probably could have been prevented in August of 2001 if Bush and Rice had listened to a CIA warning about Al-Qaeda preparing hijackings in the U.S. But Bush and Rice did nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to put airports on a heightened security alert. Then Bush --at the very least --is an accessory to mass murder. Some case law:

The State concedes there was not sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of first-degree murder based on premeditation and deliberation, and it was error to so charge. There was evidence, however, that the defendant was an accessory before the fact to first-degree burglary, as we shall demonstrate later in this opinion. The killing was done during this burglary, which killing would be felony murder. State v. Simmons , 286 N.C. 681, 213 S.E.2d 280 (1975), death sentence vacated , 428 U.S. 903, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1208 (1976).

--IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA, 9 February 1996, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DANIEL C. MARR, No. 164PA94 - Polk

If Bush participated in the destruction of evidence after 911, then he is an accessory after the fact.

Section 3. Accessory after the fact

Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.

But 911 is not a run-o-the-mill act of violence to which Bush is prima facie an accessory after the fact. 911, enabled by Bush inaction 'before the fact' is, therefore, an act of high treason. That changes everything:

The Supreme Court sustained a conviction of treason, for the first time in its history, in 1947 in Haupt v. United States. 1299 Here it was held that although the overt acts relied upon to support the charge of treason--defendant's harboring and sheltering in his home his son who was an enemy spy and saboteur, assisting him in purchasing an automobile, and in obtaining employment in a defense plant--were all acts which a father would naturally perform for a son, this fact did not necessarily relieve them of the treasonable purpose of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

--See: HAUPT v. U.S., 330 U.S. 631 (1947)

The reality is that the Bush White House covered up much about 9/11, including its own incompetence. 

Indeed! Bush ordered the destruction, sale or removal of most of the evidence prior to investigation. Last time I checked, 911 was a crime. This willful cover up of a crime IS a crime. In this case --'obstruction of justice' at the very least! Certainly, 'accessory after the fact'.

Brush up your history of Watergate. Whether or not Nixon was complicit in the plot depended upon what he knew and when he knew it, an issue central to the special prosecutor's investigation. Similarly, much of Bush's complicity in 911 depends upon what he knew and when he knew it. If Bush had any knowledge whatsoever of any plot by anyone at any time and failed to act upon it, he should be prosecuted to the letter of the law!

How much we don't know. But we do know that -- if you recall -- Bush would only be interviewed by the 9/11 Commission (which was stacked with white-washers) with Cheney at his side, and with no notes or minutes taken, and with their not being sworn in under oath, and with the "interview" occurring in the Oval Office. That sort of scenario does not inspire a great deal of credibility.

Indeed, it does not! We might have known what we now 'don't know' had there been various investigations that Bush either overtly and deliberately quashed or failed to support. One is culpable who is aware of an imminent murder and despite being in a position to prevent it does nothing! If I were a juror considering a capital crimes indictment against GWB, I might be swayed not only by Bush's failure to act but his overt actions to quash! I might be inclined to return: guilty as charged!

Late July 2001 (B): David Schippers, noted conservative Chicago lawyer and the House Judiciary Committee's chief investigator in the Clinton impeachment trial, later claims that FBI agents in Chicago and Minnesota contact him around this time and tell him that a terrorist attack is going to occur in lower Manhattan. According to Schippers, the agents had been developing extensive information on the planned attack for many months. However, the FBI soon pulls them off the terrorist investigation and threatens them with prosecution under the National Security Act if they go public with the information.

--Verifiable Research on 9/11

Now --if you don't believe 'Verifiable Research', call up David Schippers and ask him directly. That's called journalism. If Bush had foreknowledge of this type and failed to act, then he is at least guilty of being an accessory before the fact. An additional charge of high treason might be prosecuted due to the fact that '911' was, in fact, an act of war against the people of the US.

But on a scale of 1 to 10, BuzzFlash would put it at an 8 likelihood that Flight 93 was indeed downed by an American missile.

Perhaps Buzzflash missed it when Donald Rumsfeld referred on video tape to the 'missile' that hit the Pentagon and the 'missile' that shot down Flight 93.

In the meantime, Buzzflash would do well to represent fairly the positions of the 911 truth movement as a whole. Buzzflash would do well to consider the implications of the Bush administration's order to sell off WTC steel to China, for example, an act that makes Bush --prima facie --an accessory to mass murder after the fact! The destruction of that evidence alone should have been enough to land Bush in the dock in a Federal Courtroom. Now --my position is that innocent folk rarely cover up capital crimes nor have an interest in doing so. The cover up of capital crimes is something that is invariably done by those who commit them!

---