Atlanta Skins Fan Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 I understand that few here (if any) so far are willing to seriously consider, much less believe, my theory about how certain members of the current U.S. administration may have been the masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks. To spare the board, I'm not going to rehash those arguments here. Let me briefly summarize, quoting my recent post: As to the question of the 9/11 plot -- in which I proposed the possibility that it was initiated by current senior administration officials between March and May 2000 during the late Republican primary season, and executed by Mossad through control of duped Islamic militants -- surely you see why I don't believe this is a widespread conspiracy. The plot that I have asserted, if true, is a hanging offense of mass murder and treason. If such a plot existed, only a very few in the U.S. knew -- and they can probably all be found on the roster of PNAC. I'm going to ask you to suspend your disbelief for just a moment, to consider the legal implications *if* such a conspiracy existed. If it will make you feel better, imagine that we are writing a movie plot and trying to make legally sound plot decisions. To make this more palatable, let's refer to titles to avoid impugning real people. I really am trying to think about this on a legal level, and some of you who can think about this on that level will be more comfortable with abstractions than on the level of actual, ongoing treason by current U.S. senior officials. In the movie plot we are discussing, we suppose that the 9/11 plot was set in motion between March and May 2000, late in the U.S. primary season, by members of a neo-conservative think tank called AUA (America Uber Alles). These members had been funding and advising the leading Republican presidential candidate. With that candidate having won the Super Tuesday primaries in early March, the members set in motion their 9/11 plot -- with no knowledge by the candidate. (An alternative plot says these officials were only "aware" of the 9/11 plot, and did not stop it.) The rationale for the plot was to create a "catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor" that could justify their policies of global domination. Execution of the plot was performed by WBD ("War By Deception"), a secret covert ops agency run by a Middle East ally, using duped Islamic militants as the hijackers. Following 9/11, the Attorney General (who was not part of AUA, and whose guilt is in doubt) rammed through Congress a series of police state powers, and appeared to be one of the most reactionary members of the administration -- harassing and depriving the rights of many U.S. Muslims, and holding hundreds of "enemy combatants" without charge in Guantanamo Bay. Now to the legal point: Normally corruption and high crimes by senior executive-branch officials would be investigated by any of the following: The Attorney General The U.S. Congress An independent counsel, in an investigation initiated by the Attorney General An independent investigation by a commission appointed by the president and Congress However, in this case, none of these possibilities seem likely to pursue a thorough investigation of senior executive officials. Congress is controlled by the president's party and supported the Iraq War partly on 9/11 grounds. The independent counsel law is expired. And the "independent commission" was first launched under a highly compromised head (former secretary of state Henry Vadar) and his replacement is compromised by conflict of interest, not to mention the mutual desire of the president and Congress for U.S. hands to look clean. The Attorney General might not be part of the plot, but certainly shares the strategy objectives of the conspirators (U.S. global domination) -- and would be loathe to bring down the administration over the "collateral damage" of a few thousand Americans in the far greater global war. So, then, must the conspirators get away with it? Is there no recourse in this situation? (Again, suspend your disbelief and consider the legal quandry in this scenario.) Or are there other possibilities? Such as: A secret grand jury investigation, convened by a district attorney in an affected district (such as Manhattan or Arlington, or more tenuously, Boston, Newark and Dulles), which might have the authority to grant immunity to a lower member of AUA, in exchange for testimony. A civil suit by the family of a person killed during 9/11 A suit to declare the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional and a malicious defense of felonious acts, which would require a finding that felonious acts occurred (the 9/11 plot) A civil suit against the vice president, secretary of defense, and undersecretary of defense, for treason against the United States, which would require direct examination of those charged and examination of various hostile witnesses Is there another possibility? Just think on the legal level, guys. What's possible? What's most likely to succeed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 I'm not sure, ASF, but, my question is more basic. The President was recently removed as his cabinet invoked the 25th Amendment. With the Vice President taking over, and the old President's ex-wife stabbed, do you think she'll die or live and will he get the Presidency back again or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Who could investigate any U.S. role in 9/11, and bring charges against the guilty? Matlock!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Originally posted by Art I'm not sure, ASF, but, my question is more basic. The President was recently removed as his cabinet invoked the 25th Amendment. With the Vice President taking over, and the old President's ex-wife stabbed, do you think she'll die or live and will he get the Presidency back again or not? I thought this was an unrealistic interpretation of the 25th Amendment. On top of that, they chose to remove Palmer within 8 hours of the bomb going off - because he failed to attack. Why such the immediacy? 24 blew this one big time. On a side note, does anyone watch Lucky on FX? Funny damn show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 We could get the UN to do the prosecution, if they were an actual legal apparatus. But that again, that would virtually assure nothing would ever be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Why that's elementary Watson.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 WHO YOU GONNA CALL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Code, It is an unrealistic interpetation, I agree. But, it is the sneaky interpretation that U.S. coup books and shows like to use . I think the show also did a good job of not just using his actions after the bomb went off to support the removal, but, used his actions prior to it, with the torture of the NSA chief and the detention of the journalist. While I think you're right it couldn't happen that way, the scenario 24 created doesn't totally miss the boat IF you believe that inaction would have lost the element of surprise for us. If you believe that, then the pressing nature is there and you could see action taken that quickly. However, my problem is the thought that we'd lose the surprise. Why would we? We don't have to say it was them. We could just say we were attacked and we're figuring it out and we could still launch a surprise attack. I mean, are they kidding that an attack with THREE U.S. bombers is enough that if not conducted could mean thousands of soldier deaths later? That's the part I don't buy. But, if I bought it, I could see what happened happening . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 24 is a great show, but for the last month the story line has really pissed me off. I think its an attack on the current adminstration( the real one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Originally posted by luckydevi 24 is a great show, but for the last month the story line has really pissed me off. I think its an attack on the current adminstration( the real one) yeah, thats what it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 I think it's a great show, but I agree with TEG that they are reaching a bit too far with their interpretation of the 25th amendment, and Art in that this suprise attack MUST go on so soon, so much so that there are those that would be willing to unseat a President to make it happen. I'm sort of forcing myself to watch the last few hours because I just don't buy the crises they are presenting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Awesome show, but you have to suspend belief for that hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 ASF, The obvious answer is the press. If you could make a case tight enough for a court, it would make a great story. At the point where the "secret" conspiracy controls congress, the presidency, the judicial branches, and enough of the press to make anyone questioning seem stupid, I doubt secret is a good word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 The answer to the original question posed by ASF is obvious: Elvis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 I think last year's show was more realistic, but this year's show is better and more intense, though it's just falling more flat in terms of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 From where I sit, if ASF's theory is true, I would just be happy to never find out at all. I would perfer to live in the America I think I live in now! (If that makes sense?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted May 8, 2003 Author Share Posted May 8, 2003 Originally posted by gbear The obvious answer is the press. If you could make a case tight enough for a court, it would make a great story. You are thinking about court cases as wholly delivered packages, which they are often not. You can work your way up the food chain by trapping certain criminals and flipping them against greater criminals. For example, an excellent place to start a 9/11 investigation would be to investigate who placed "put" options on American and United Airlines immediately prior to the attacks. (There was a huge spike, almost impossible to be a coincidence.) The money is uncollected, and the theory is that the stock exchange shut down too fast for the collection of money, and it was too late to collect later (by which time authorities were certainly monitoring those options). In short, follow the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 If pigs could fly, who would be air traffic controller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 If you could be any kind of animal, who would be your veterinarian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 If you had tires instead of feet, what pressure would you maintain them at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 If Hell froze over, where would Satan relocate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted May 9, 2003 Share Posted May 9, 2003 Bin Laden used to work for Haliburton...swear to God!!!!!! it all makes sense now........ all those training camps in Afghanistan...funded by the CIA of course... Al Queda plans from captured harddrives and notes.......NSC plants of course.... the Cole incident?....give me a break....self inflicted....... gotta give Rummy credit for one thing....he my have screwed up the first WTC attack...but he never gave up!!!!!! that's what you want in a leader...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted May 9, 2003 Share Posted May 9, 2003 Originally posted by JackC From where I sit, if ASF's theory is true, I would just be happy to never find out at all. I would perfer to live in the America I think I live in now! (If that makes sense?) Got a bit of the ostrich in you there, Jack?Don't worry. ASFs theory isn't true. First we get a month of Jags' End-of-the-World theories and now a daily bombardment of conspiracy plots courtesy of that ole' button-pusher, ASF. Maybe you two guys should get together and start your own website: Alarmists.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted May 9, 2003 Share Posted May 9, 2003 24 might be a halfway decent show if they didn't have to do twenty-four individual episodes. That provides way, way, way too much time for the writers to go off on ridiculous, tangential, never-happen-in-a-million-years storylines. Sometimes I tune into 24 for about five to ten minutes at a time and just laugh my @ss off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted May 9, 2003 Share Posted May 9, 2003 Originally posted by Art I'm not sure, ASF, but, my question is more basic. The President was recently removed as his cabinet invoked the 25th Amendment. With the Vice President taking over, and the old President's ex-wife stabbed, do you think she'll die or live and will he get the Presidency back again or not? He has to be back as the pres, nd the first lady will go to some cusshy jail. What is more important is when Kim makes an appearance in Playboy:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.