Mr. Campos makes several very good points. His points deal with what it may have been like if what happened on September 11, 2001 happened under a Gore Administration. He suspects that there would have been right wing politicians and pundits that would have at least implied that the Gore Administration was complicit in what happened.
It appears to me that Mr. Campos’s further research into 9/11 has given him pause, but has not convinced him that there was complicity by The Regime.
I believe that, as Mr. Campos implies, most of us who theorize about truly plausible scenarios would want exactly what he believes someone like Glenn Reynolds would want. We want a “truly independent investigation of these troubling charges”. What would comprise a “truly independent investigation”?
- 1. Those investigating this crime would back way up and start with “who did it?” Surely 19 young Middle Eastern “terrorists” were “indicted”, convicted and, ultimately, punished. It’s the swiftness with which the criminals were identified that compels us to wonder how we knew these young men were guilty so quickly.
2. The commission/committee should include absolutely no one who was ever intimate with The Regime. I refer here to Philip Zelikow.
3. The investigators would have unfettered subpoena power from which absolutely no one would be exempt. It would carry no caveats, no matter about whom we’re talking. No degree of “indignation” should exempt anyone from being called.
I’m in no way a fan of Bill “NAFTA” Clinton, but he was forced to testify in public, under oath concerning an accusation of much less significance.
4. Testimony by everyone and anyone would be public. If there is any evidence that The Regime was complicit, circumstantial as the evidence may be, the testimony should be public.
5. Anyone involved or whose testimony would shed light on the many unanswered questions, survivors, families, experts, should be allowed to testify.
6. There should be a polite expression of gratitude to each and everyone who testifies, but the expression should go no further than, “Thank you for being here to testify in this case”, no matter whom the witness is. There should be no politically inspired speech which leans one way or another greeting any witness. Just a simple “thank you” should suffice.
I’ve read that, no matter how strong one’s faith is or how strongly one doubts the existence of a supreme being, everyone is an agnostic. I hate to think of myself as an agnostic as I can’t believe for a moment that there’s a supreme being, especially one as described in “religious manuals”. However, I have to admit that I really don’t know. That is, after all, the meaning of the word agnostic.
It’s also what the word “theory” means, or, at least, implies. We don’t know, but we suspect strongly based upon evidence, albeit circumstantial.
It’s difficult to convict someone in the lower classes based upon circumstantial evidence and that’s good. Nonetheless, the suspect is usually held in custody until he or she is acquitted. Then the suspect is freed. The suspect is said to be innocent until proven guilty but is held in custody anyway.
It may at first seem unfair to refer to The Regime as a suspect, or group of suspects based solely upon circumstantial evidence. However, members of The Regime would remain free while awaiting their trial and, in fact, would continue to govern the Former United States of America (the FUSA) until they are convicted. I think that’s a fair trade off.
Those points would comprise a truly independent trial and I believe that’s all we who seriously question the activities of September 11, 2001, that is, those of us who don’t explain it away with holograms, space invaders or other unlikely causes, are seeking – a fair, efficient, impartial and thorough trial/investigation.
Should the investigation clear The Regime, so be it. It will have been done as fairly as it’s done for the lower classes.
On the other hand, if it’s proved that The Regime was complicit in or even planned and carried out “The New Pearl Harbor” to gain support for its colonization of The Middle East and its stealing of its resources, members who were involved should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. It would be the ultimate justice if the punishment was modeled after that which George W. Bush found so easy to mete out while governor of Texas.
I strongly oppose the death penalty, but might make an exception in this case. The mass murder of 3,000 innocent persons to justify the “serial killing” of American soldiers, Afghani and Iraqi civilians is as evil and unthinkable a crime, or combination of crimes, that could ever be carried out.
We need people like Mr. Campos and articles like his to offer some degree of legitimacy to the theory.
To friendship,
Michael
“I learned the hard way that there is no glory in a folded flag”. – A woman whose husband had been killed in Vietnam
The Mind Of Michael
Speak Your Mind And Read Mine
“Flameland”
