Anyone who travels abroad and kills someone is, in simple terms, responsible for their actions and should be held accountable (Note - libel relates to writing or publishing false statements). It would be a far reach to hold their home country accountable for their actions. Now, anyone who does this killing or indiscriminate acts to terrorize, and on the behalf of an organized group or government, opens that sponsoring group or government to charges. I'm not fully up on the entire bill, that's just my view.
Executive branch of usa sides with terrorism yet again
- Thread starter tripod
- Start date
Anyone who travels abroad and kills someone is, in simple terms, responsible for their actions and should be held accountable (Note - libel relates to writing or publishing false statements). It would be a far reach to hold their home country accountable for their actions. Now, anyone who does this killing or indiscriminate acts to terrorize, and on the behalf of an organized group or government, opens that sponsoring group or government to charges. I'm not fully up on the entire bill, that's just my view.
@Crimsonlurker ..Relax, nothing is gonna happen..aren't you "aware" of the provision in the bill I mentioned above?
.."allowing the U.S. Govt. to effectively halt litigation if the State Dept. certifies there are "good faith negotiations "underway with the defendant nation. That would lead to a 180 day (6 months) pause, which could repeatedly be extended.."
You can read the NYT's version; http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/opinion/the-risks-of-suing-the-saudis-for-9-11.html?_r=0
and The Intercept's Version; https://theintercept.com/2016/09/28...-the-most-embarrassing-thing-senate-has-done/
Read the comments section for some eye opening information
.."allowing the U.S. Govt. to effectively halt litigation if the State Dept. certifies there are "good faith negotiations "underway with the defendant nation. That would lead to a 180 day (6 months) pause, which could repeatedly be extended.."
You can read the NYT's version; http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/opinion/the-risks-of-suing-the-saudis-for-9-11.html?_r=0
and The Intercept's Version; https://theintercept.com/2016/09/28...-the-most-embarrassing-thing-senate-has-done/
Read the comments section for some eye opening information
Last edited:
Crimsonlurker
Admired Member
Well i'll admit once again that i'm not a lawyer and that i don't really know all that much about law so take what i'm saying with that in mind but................how difficult is that to prove? How difficult is that to fake? Our intelligence community has a difficult enough time now trying to filter through who is who and why. In my mind it wouldn't be all that difficult for another country to create evidence of a terrorist act or terrorist acts in general that were perpetrated by an american or americans.
Oh good gravy this could have just put americans traveling abroad on notice. Holy hell.
Anyway, it isn't that difficult to fabricate evidence. Especially when the country is doing it within their own country with the help of their countrymen and women. I mean this is assuming there isn't a case for. That it hasn't already happened. I don't know the amount of hate groups there are around the country but i'm pretty sure there are americans abroad within them.
Yeah but thats just stalling really. And seeing as how this went across political lines there would be more of a push for it. Meaning it would be much more likely to get through. Which means it would be much more likely to cause long term damage and open america up for people unwilling to stall. Not only that but make things much more complicated financially and with regard to security in the meantime.
Did they say something about america being shielded from lawsuits from other countries in that time? Cause if not all america's enemies would have to do is talk to other enemies of america, get some sort of coalition together and mass sue the pants off us while we're stalling. I mean i'm just speculating on all this but this would seem the prime time for other countries to come after us. Generally....in my opinion.
Again, relax, this is an election year..really..just turn off MSM and don't read the NYT or WP. By November, another distraction called Election Day will bury(pardon the pun)this story..
Really, you're frightening yourself..you're sounding like the American version of Jason from the UK..what sue Americans?.. how dare they!!
Seriously, The US Govt. will not allow certain unmentionable, taboo subjects to be considered in a court of law due to the possible incriminating nature of the subject matter regarding the previous administrations' coziness with the Saudi regimes..
Really, you're frightening yourself..you're sounding like the American version of Jason from the UK..what sue Americans?.. how dare they!!
Seriously, The US Govt. will not allow certain unmentionable, taboo subjects to be considered in a court of law due to the possible incriminating nature of the subject matter regarding the previous administrations' coziness with the Saudi regimes..
Last edited:
Crimsonlurker
Admired Member
Yeah, i'm thinking this "distraction" won't be going away any time soon. If i were another country i would be seeing this as a potential opportunity. Financially, strategically and intelligence wise. And if i'm an enemy to america....even more so. Seriously, it isn't just money the law is after. It's also after intel. Like 24 jack bauer intel. Like security infrastructures intel. Which is much much more valuable. So if by any stretch of the imagination this goes through or is honored. The blowback will be amazing. And to think, people thought edward snowden was bad.
Again, you're frame of reference is based on the propaganda which tells you any other information besides the official narrative is conspiracy theory..You mentioned 24, Jack Bauer..sure you'll watch that stuff for entertainment, but heaven forbid, you will ever think it's possible that it's just not ficticious ..
You mentioned security infrastructure and intel..
Look up Hedges vs. Obama 2012..and the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act
Look up the spatial coincidences between the Antrax attacks and the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001, and then come back and tell me about Snowden and intel and security infrastructure
Again, really..relax..the information is already out there, if you want to read it that is..if not. So be it..but you're not gonna find it in MSM
Crimsonlurker
Admired Member
Umm yeah i have very little idea what you're currently on about. I mentioned snowden because people wanted him dead for what he did. I didn't. I think america does have problems with a lot of things. When it comes to the topic of the 9/11 bill though many of those people had a brain fart. Not really realizing the consequences of their actions. Here let me show you...
A day after veto override, Congress has second thoughts and may fix Sept. 11 bill
"Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) both acknowledged Thursday that the bill, which narrows a foreign nation’s immunity from legal challenge, could backfire by exposing the United States to retaliatory lawsuits by foreign victims of terrorism.
“There may be some work to be done,” Ryan told reporters.
“By the time everybody seemed to focus on some of the potential consequences of it, members had already taken a position,” McConnell said. “Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were, but nobody really had focused on the potential downside in terms of our international relationships. I think it was just a ball dropped.”
"What's true in elementary school is true in the United States Congress: Ignorance is not an excuse, particularly when it comes to our national security," said White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest.
Earnest noted that Obama spoke about the legislation as far back as April, and he disputed claims from some Republicans, including Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, that the White House refused to engage in negotiations over the legislation in the last week. He noted that the legislation was modified this spring in response to White House concerns, but said the changes did not go far enough.
“What it mostly is, is an abject embarrassment,” Earnest said. “Because I think the American people, and certainly our men and women in uniform … expect better service and leadership from the men and women that they elected to represent them.""
So yeah. Relax? I am relaxed. Are you? Do you really understand the consequences of this? It seems some people are. Is this also propaganda? It would seem to me that while you were correct on this being election year shenanigans even you haven't realized just how potentially serious this could be. After that....i don't really know what else to say.
1). Justice requires that one not intend harm against civilians.
2). Harm that is merely accidental, or even that is foreseen but not intended, is permissible, though of course regrettable and to be avoided where possible.
3). The basic dividing line for just conduct in war, then, is that between harm which is intended and harm which is at most foreseen but not intended.
The court will determine fault through applying the "Doctrine of Double Effect".
The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:
- The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
- The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
- The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
- The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect“
The Doctrine of Double Effect should have always 100% of the time been followed to the letter... it is the responsibility of a "good" nation to conduct itself in a manner which could be easily determined in a court of law as being in good faith.
But... if the United States operates it's military actions with disregard for the Double Effect Doctrine... it absolutely 100% should be open to retribution at the hands of justice in a court of law.
The argument presented to the media by the executive branch and a couple of assholes in the House and Senate (Ryan and McConnell) is specious... the United States should conduct themselves in a manner which is always in accordance with the law. We actually have rules and laws in our own country which allow members of government to be held accountable for violations of the Doctrine of Double Effect... but they are neither pursued nor enforced.
There should not be ONE military action conducted by the United States (or a military organization under control of the United States) that would EVER violate the Double Effect Doctrine... we should as a nation act under the rule of law because we are a nation of laws.
The fact that a nation of laws would be subject to the same laws in an international arena seems fitting and JUST. If the nation wants to avoid lawsuits... and let's be clear... these lawsuits would just be for civil damages... the nation should conduct themselves accordingly.
The PROBLEM is... that only the Executive branch and a small handful of congressmen (of which Ryan and McConnell are members of) are aware that the United States is a state sponsor of terror... the rest of the house and senate is under the impression that the United States fights terrorism, not conducts it. THIS is why there is a disconnect between the legislative branch and the executive branch... it's because the security clearances of the vast majority of congresspersons are too low to know that we are in league with Saudi Arabia to spread terrorism across the globe.
Like I said... the arguments against JASTA are specious and nefariously underhanded.
Yes..the potential you say, the most embarrassing person so far, I say is the Press Secretary Josh-by Gosh Earnest..What a guy, eh?. Talk about ridicule
Mr. Earnest must have just fell off the turnip truck yesterday and had his memory cleared to 1983.
Ahh, ignorance is bliss...WoW
Last edited:
rbkwp
Mythical Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Posts
- 79,319
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 44,991
- Points
- 608
- Location
- Auckland (New Zealand)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
'smile'
1/2 pissed
and would like to offer an outsiders opinion
but
know, i will possibly be accused,not by the OP,of,thumbing my nose at the AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT',looking down on you,whatever,and, i know sweet F'all about the USA
going by what ive observed,many Americans know sweet F'all about there own country
and or, theyre too shit scared to offer there/an opinion
a'part from the occasional few
think CIA/FBI Paranoia instilled .. huh ha ..
Yes, notwithstanding security clearances for congress, in matters related to 9/11, one consequence of so much secrecy, privacy, and security clearances is the big elephant in the room asking, "what are they trying to hide for us?" "Why won't you answer our questions?" As a response to 15 years of obfuscation, we have the current congressional cluster-fuck, oh-oh, what have we done, what do we do now?
Another latent consequence of not being answered and told the truth by your elected officials, is to seek the truth and answers by other means. This has manifested itself over the past 15 years into a substantial force of intelligent, knowledgeable academics, scientists , engineers and architects..who have compiled a substantial amount of research.
So even if those in Congress believe in the official narrative, they are still aware of the information available, even if they don't believe it, the unmentionable lil voice in the background keeps pestering them, "yeah, but what if some of this stuff really happened?"
There are no Thought Police in this country, "yet", This is not Saudi Arabia, this is not Israel..If the 9/11 victims surviving family members had been given truthful answers to their questions, none of this shit would be happening now.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Posts
- 22,240
- Media
- 213
- Likes
- 31,766
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Crimsonlurker
Admired Member
And now operation blame obama is in full effect. The guy is literally on his way out and people are still trying to blame him for something he had nothing to do with.
Congress Now Blaming Obama For Its Embarrassing Override Of His Veto
“I think it was just a ball dropped,” McConnell added. “I wish the president — I hate to blame everything on him, and I don’t — but it would have been helpful had he, uh, we had a discussion about this much earlier than last week.”
Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), a sponsor of bill, was harsher on Wednesday, while his colleagues were working up their letter expressing doubts.
“What’s so remarkable to me is the detachment of this White House from anything to do with the legislative process,” Cornyn told reporters. “They were basically missing in action during this whole process.”
But there’s a catch.
Before criticism started blowing up around the world over JASTA, Republicans accused Obama of doing too much to kill the bill they are now worried about. And Cornyn in particular was angry about it. He said so in April, on the Senate floor, just before Obama went to meet with the Saudis.
“Unfortunately, the administration has worked to undercut progress of this legislation at every turn,” Cornyn said.
“It appears that the Obama administration is pulling out all the stops to keep this bill from moving forward before the president’s visit to Riyadh,” he said. “I wish the President and his aides would spend as much time and energy working with us in a bipartisan manner as they have working against us trying to prevent victims of terrorism from receiving the justice they deserve.”
Five years. They've been pushing for this for five years. Had a chance to consider the consequences for five years. And they're angry with the president for not having tried to stop them sooner? Thats some hardcore buck passing right there. Even after they stopped HIM from stopping it.
Yeah this is a bit of stupidity that crosses political lines. And it just so happens that about everyone will be to blame...except of course barack obama. Which is pretty hilarious considering people failed to blame yet another thing on him he had nothing to do with.
Congress Now Blaming Obama For Its Embarrassing Override Of His Veto
“I think it was just a ball dropped,” McConnell added. “I wish the president — I hate to blame everything on him, and I don’t — but it would have been helpful had he, uh, we had a discussion about this much earlier than last week.”
Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), a sponsor of bill, was harsher on Wednesday, while his colleagues were working up their letter expressing doubts.
“What’s so remarkable to me is the detachment of this White House from anything to do with the legislative process,” Cornyn told reporters. “They were basically missing in action during this whole process.”
But there’s a catch.
Before criticism started blowing up around the world over JASTA, Republicans accused Obama of doing too much to kill the bill they are now worried about. And Cornyn in particular was angry about it. He said so in April, on the Senate floor, just before Obama went to meet with the Saudis.
“Unfortunately, the administration has worked to undercut progress of this legislation at every turn,” Cornyn said.
“It appears that the Obama administration is pulling out all the stops to keep this bill from moving forward before the president’s visit to Riyadh,” he said. “I wish the President and his aides would spend as much time and energy working with us in a bipartisan manner as they have working against us trying to prevent victims of terrorism from receiving the justice they deserve.”
Five years. They've been pushing for this for five years. Had a chance to consider the consequences for five years. And they're angry with the president for not having tried to stop them sooner? Thats some hardcore buck passing right there. Even after they stopped HIM from stopping it.
Yeah this is a bit of stupidity that crosses political lines. And it just so happens that about everyone will be to blame...except of course barack obama. Which is pretty hilarious considering people failed to blame yet another thing on him he had nothing to do with.
That doesn't seem all that objectionable of a statement although it does seem a little tongue-in-cheek.
This is most likely talking about the whole 5 year process not just the last few months.
Being involved in the "legislation process" is not the same as trying to kill the bill.
Regretfully, everything that Cornyn and McConnell said is true and... you do realize that you just linked to the same article written by two different authors right? It's basically damage control in the form of innocuous "articles" disseminated to the public by sympathetic journalists who toe the DNC line at nearly every opportunity. These articles are re-published, re-written, re-blogged and re-posted in a carefully controlled barrage of pro-DNC collaborators.
When asshats like Cornyn and McConnell start making sense... something is really rotten in Denmark.
Why you would take the bait and be Saudi Arabia's cheerleader leaves me baffled. Saudi Arabia NEEDS TO MOTHERFUCKING PAY FOR WHAT IT HAS DONE AND WHAT IT HAS BEEN DOING. ATTEMPTS TO PROTECT SAUDI ARABIA SHOULD BE SEEN AS BEING IN COLLUSION WITH TERRORISM, simple as that... being soft on terror is EVIL.
The attacks of September 11 were an act of war meant to gain control over others. That’s true no matter what conspiracy you believe. If it had not been for 9/ 11 victim’s family members working diligently to publicize problems with the official narrative, there would never have been a 9/ 11 Commission investigation at all. Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney actively sought to limit the investigation into the attacks.
When the political pressure caused by the victim’s families grew too great, the 9/ 11 Commission was born. But the Commission was given less than one tenth of the funding that had been allotted to investigate the sexual exploits of President Clinton just three years earlier. Clearly, the U.S. government did not want an in-depth investigation into 9/ 11.
The 9/ 11 Commission took this “we found no evidence” phrase to an extreme and used some form of it 36 times within its report. Four of those instances highlight the fact that the 9/ 11 Commission could not explain how any of the alleged hijackers entered the cockpits of any of the four hijacked planes. Other instances reflected that the Commission put almost no effort into allegations of insider trading, or how the attacks were funded, which the Commission said was “of little practical significance.”. In an honest investigation, the funding would be seen as a strong clue to who was behind the attacks.
Questions;
Why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list of countries sponsoring terrorism?
Why was the FBI and CIA seeking to exclude evidence about Saudi involvement with terrorists?
Why was Saudi Arabia given preferential treatment above all other
nations in immigration? (Visa Express)
· What was the reason for creating the Visa Express?
· Prior to Sept. 11, Visa Express permitted approximately 97 percent of Saudi applicants to obtain visas without face-to-face interviews http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73485,00.html
Why were the Saudi relatives whisked out of America so quickly when other planes were grounded after the attacks?
· Who gave permission for them to leave?
· Do they know if the names the hijackers used were their real names?
Did Atif Ahmad have a connection to Atta as well as to Moussaoui?
· Is Atif Ahmed a British double agent?
Who were the terrorist informants working with the FBI?
a.) What did the FBI learn from them?
b.) What were the 9/11 warnings provided by these informants?
c.) What was done with these warnings to protect the American public?
When the political pressure caused by the victim’s families grew too great, the 9/ 11 Commission was born. But the Commission was given less than one tenth of the funding that had been allotted to investigate the sexual exploits of President Clinton just three years earlier. Clearly, the U.S. government did not want an in-depth investigation into 9/ 11.
The 9/ 11 Commission took this “we found no evidence” phrase to an extreme and used some form of it 36 times within its report. Four of those instances highlight the fact that the 9/ 11 Commission could not explain how any of the alleged hijackers entered the cockpits of any of the four hijacked planes. Other instances reflected that the Commission put almost no effort into allegations of insider trading, or how the attacks were funded, which the Commission said was “of little practical significance.”. In an honest investigation, the funding would be seen as a strong clue to who was behind the attacks.
Questions;
Why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list of countries sponsoring terrorism?
Why was the FBI and CIA seeking to exclude evidence about Saudi involvement with terrorists?
Why was Saudi Arabia given preferential treatment above all other
nations in immigration? (Visa Express)
· What was the reason for creating the Visa Express?
· Prior to Sept. 11, Visa Express permitted approximately 97 percent of Saudi applicants to obtain visas without face-to-face interviews http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73485,00.html
Why were the Saudi relatives whisked out of America so quickly when other planes were grounded after the attacks?
· Who gave permission for them to leave?
· Do they know if the names the hijackers used were their real names?
Did Atif Ahmad have a connection to Atta as well as to Moussaoui?
· Is Atif Ahmed a British double agent?
Who were the terrorist informants working with the FBI?
a.) What did the FBI learn from them?
b.) What were the 9/11 warnings provided by these informants?
c.) What was done with these warnings to protect the American public?
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Posts
- 22,240
- Media
- 213
- Likes
- 31,766
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Crimsonlurker
Admired Member
Yeah i'm willing to go on the big dick site's record in saying the 9'11 bill was and is a very huge, massive, illogical and emotionally backed mistake. One that will and has negatively effected both america and americans. It may even give terrorist even more ammo to levy towards america and maybe it's allies. In many different creative ways.
If other people want to disagree. Fine. Just remember. Once again, i may not always agree with the man but with this i do 100%.
If other people want to disagree. Fine. Just remember. Once again, i may not always agree with the man but with this i do 100%.
Baseless accusation. You can go through 100% of my posts and not fund ONE instance of my waxing about how great Russia is.
More of your weak cognitive functions being on full display.
If you are okay with giving comfort to the terrorists, you are a lost soul and are beyond redemption.
I've yet to see a situation were you fundamentally disagreed with the administration... you've toe'd every single line like a good brown shirt.
Okidoke..seems the cringe and pucker people are getting a lil upset..YOU SHOULD BE!
The most recent bout of Congressional Puckering is due to an impending Snowball effect which may or may not be due to accusations between the Saudi’s and the US administration which will fester into accusations from the Saudi’s against the USA, UAE and the Zionists, which will blowback into the face of the US administration.
This all depends on the depth and scope of “compartmentalization”; the so called “security apparatus”..It's The Who knew what when stuff and the plausibility of denial..Rewatch the Iran-Contra hearings for a refresher ..
More lingering questions regarding the hijackers..
Although there are numerous uncertainties about their identities and histories, there was certainly a group of young Arab men with connections to the 9/ 11 operation. There is a wealth of material relating to their presence in the U.S. prior to the attacks—renting apartments, attending flight schools—and to their suspicious actions during the immediate lead-up to the attacks.
But there is no credible evidence that they were involved in planning the attacks and there is no credible evidence they hijacked four planes on September 11.
Rather, they appear to have been following a script, laying a trail that would later lead people to conclude they were hijackers. What their awareness of the overall operation may have been it is difficult to say.
The concept of burden of proof suggests that if someone is accused of a crime the responsibility of providing evidence and making a case lies with the accusers.
The accused, and those supporting the accused, do not have an equivalent responsibility to prove innocence.
The accused is to be presumed innocent.
If the U.S. government is convinced the 19 Arab men carried out the crime it must present its evidence. Indeed, this was the request of the Taliban, who indicated they would then turn over Osama bin Laden (thus obviating what would become the longest war in U.S. history)—but such proof was never forthcoming. The exhortation to simply trust the U.S. government, and the studies and reports associated with that government (such as the 9/ 11 Commission Report and the various studies by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology), is misguided.
Deciding to trust government and to ignore evidence that conflicts with what government claims is unwise at the best of times, and in the present case it is strikingly irrational. The government that accused these 19 men of carrying out hijackings is the same government that made false statements about Iraq 935 times; it is the same government that is revealed in the Downing Street memo and in much other documentation as having conspired to deceive the public in order tko carry out its agenda. The U.S. government’s attempts to furnish evidence that the 19 Arab men hijacked planes on 9/ 11 have failed to meet basic standards.
The following five classes of evidence should have been produced by the US authorities in September 2001 or shortly thereafter:
1. Authenticated passenger lists (or flight manifests), listing the names of all the passengers and crew members, including those suspected of hijacking;
2. Authenticated boarding cards (or their detached coupons), on which the names of all the passengers and crew members figure, including those suspected of hijacking;
3. Authenticated security videos from the airports, which depict the passengers (and the alleged hijackers) arriving at the airport, in front of check-in counters, passing security checkpoints and boarding the aircraft;
4. Sworn testimonies of personnel who attended the boarding of the aircraft;
5. Formal identification of the bodies or bodily remains from the crash sites, including chain-of-custody reports.”
At least 15 of the 19 Hijackers had a connection to Florida.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/03/07/what-did-israel-know-in-advance-of-the-9-11-attacks/
These and many forthcoming questions are the some of the real reasons certain members of congress are becoming squeamish
The most recent bout of Congressional Puckering is due to an impending Snowball effect which may or may not be due to accusations between the Saudi’s and the US administration which will fester into accusations from the Saudi’s against the USA, UAE and the Zionists, which will blowback into the face of the US administration.
This all depends on the depth and scope of “compartmentalization”; the so called “security apparatus”..It's The Who knew what when stuff and the plausibility of denial..Rewatch the Iran-Contra hearings for a refresher ..
More lingering questions regarding the hijackers..
Although there are numerous uncertainties about their identities and histories, there was certainly a group of young Arab men with connections to the 9/ 11 operation. There is a wealth of material relating to their presence in the U.S. prior to the attacks—renting apartments, attending flight schools—and to their suspicious actions during the immediate lead-up to the attacks.
But there is no credible evidence that they were involved in planning the attacks and there is no credible evidence they hijacked four planes on September 11.
Rather, they appear to have been following a script, laying a trail that would later lead people to conclude they were hijackers. What their awareness of the overall operation may have been it is difficult to say.
The concept of burden of proof suggests that if someone is accused of a crime the responsibility of providing evidence and making a case lies with the accusers.
The accused, and those supporting the accused, do not have an equivalent responsibility to prove innocence.
The accused is to be presumed innocent.
If the U.S. government is convinced the 19 Arab men carried out the crime it must present its evidence. Indeed, this was the request of the Taliban, who indicated they would then turn over Osama bin Laden (thus obviating what would become the longest war in U.S. history)—but such proof was never forthcoming. The exhortation to simply trust the U.S. government, and the studies and reports associated with that government (such as the 9/ 11 Commission Report and the various studies by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology), is misguided.
Deciding to trust government and to ignore evidence that conflicts with what government claims is unwise at the best of times, and in the present case it is strikingly irrational. The government that accused these 19 men of carrying out hijackings is the same government that made false statements about Iraq 935 times; it is the same government that is revealed in the Downing Street memo and in much other documentation as having conspired to deceive the public in order tko carry out its agenda. The U.S. government’s attempts to furnish evidence that the 19 Arab men hijacked planes on 9/ 11 have failed to meet basic standards.
The following five classes of evidence should have been produced by the US authorities in September 2001 or shortly thereafter:
1. Authenticated passenger lists (or flight manifests), listing the names of all the passengers and crew members, including those suspected of hijacking;
2. Authenticated boarding cards (or their detached coupons), on which the names of all the passengers and crew members figure, including those suspected of hijacking;
3. Authenticated security videos from the airports, which depict the passengers (and the alleged hijackers) arriving at the airport, in front of check-in counters, passing security checkpoints and boarding the aircraft;
4. Sworn testimonies of personnel who attended the boarding of the aircraft;
5. Formal identification of the bodies or bodily remains from the crash sites, including chain-of-custody reports.”
At least 15 of the 19 Hijackers had a connection to Florida.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/03/07/what-did-israel-know-in-advance-of-the-9-11-attacks/
These and many forthcoming questions are the some of the real reasons certain members of congress are becoming squeamish
Last edited: