Why Ms Rice won't testify under oath ?

IronLionZion wrote:

In all seriousness, I am still waiting for aomebody to give a plausible reason as to why Dr. Rice refuses to testify before America at the 9/11 commission. Anybody?

Don't know much about it, but it may be a separation of powers issue. Just a guess.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

... however, it isn't true.

Oh, that's all right then. QED

(damned convenient, though. What was the gleeful phrase- a "trifecta"?)

0 Replies

BBB - Do you see the difference between having foreknowledge that terrorists were planning to hijack planes--something terrorists had done before--and having knowledge that terrorists would use a hijacked plane as a missile--something terrorists had not done before.

Your citation pretends that Condi lied in stating that no one had predicted the use of a plane as a missile, because it shows that people (of course) recognized terrorists intent to hijack planes. That's not just sloppy journalism, it is a clear effort to skew the facts to arrive at an erroneous conclusion.

0 Replies

kamikazi pilots
It's not like it's an unheard of idea. How many movies have had the same premise or idea.

0 Replies

Ceili wrote:

kamikazi pilots
It's not like it's an unheard of idea. How many movies have had the same premise or idea.

No, it's not an unheard of idea, however it appears to be one that had not occured either to terrorists or anti-terrorist officials before. Prior to 9/11 terrorists had always hijacked planes as a means towards taking hostages, never as a means of attacking a ground target. This was quite clearly the point Condi was making, and also quite clearly not evidence that she was lying as this little gem of journalism claims.

0 Replies

Good point, Scrat.

But what the FBI knew about these terrorists was not being shared with the national security adviser.

I think there was a feeling of "let these terrorists do their worst, and then we will have them where we want them" and I think that opinion was held by the President's closest advisers.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
... however, it isn't true.

Oh, that's all right then. QED

(damned convenient, though. What was the gleeful phrase- a "trifecta"?)

Since at least one of us is able to stick to the point, I will repeat that my point was that all kinds of things might be true, but one should not launch a governmental investigation of the president without some sort of indication that a charge actually is true.

0 Replies

Pardon me, Brandon, you said "it isn't true". I have seen no evidence for that, and I don't think you have.
Now you say "all kind of things might be true" and talk about government investigation of the President. That was your own idea, but I won't rule it off-topic or not "sticking to the point".

My point is, there are lots of things now emerging into the public arena about how this administratioin operates, and about how Iraq was a target before 9-11, and about how 9-11 was falsely used to manipulate American public opinion.

I say, "Bring it on", we need to know this kind of stuff, to understand the misdeeds of those in charge of our safety and security and wellbeing and laws and their implied moral leadership.

0 Replies

Brandon

Quote:

....but one should not launch a governmental investigation of the president without some sort of indication that a charge actually is true.

Well, that is certainly true. Why, my word, never in the course of this nation's history has an investigation into the dealings of a sitting President or his personal life, you know like bank transactions, land deals, extramarital affairs, been launched or pushed for in the press by members of any of our distinguished political parties.

It is shocking to contemplate the stricture on the ability of the President to govern, or to pursue a vigorous policy against the enemies of this nation, should such an inquiry be allowed to go forth. Why, my land, in such a circumstance a President might not act forcefully enough in order to avoid another barrage of accusations from his political foes that he was merely 'wagging the dog' and not acting in the best interests of the people.

Thankfully, we have the Supreme Court that will fend off any lawsuit or other attempt to look deeply, or should I say, look into at all, the current President's actions in regard to the events of 9/11 other than this already overly active, ill-conceived commission whose only mission seems to be to crucify this wonderful man in the Oval Office.

One hopes that their final report might be delayed past the summer and into the late fall, merely to give them the time they need to fully contemplate the consequences of their words, say till the fifteen of November or even later. That would serve justice well.

Joe

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Pardon me, Brandon, you said "it isn't true". I have seen no evidence for that, and I don't think you have.
Now you say "all kind of things might be true" and talk about government investigation of the President. That was your own idea, but I won't rule it off-topic or not "sticking to the point".

My point is, there are lots of things now emerging into the public arena about how this administratioin operates, and about how Iraq was a target before 9-11, and about how 9-11 was falsely used to manipulate American public opinion.

I say, "Bring it on", we need to know this kind of stuff, to understand the misdeeds of those in charge of our safety and security and wellbeing and laws and their implied moral leadership.

When I said, "It isn't true," I was referring to whether or not I am King Ludwig of Bavaria. When I said "all kinds of things might be true," I was sticking to the point, and you don't have a realistic option to rule it any other way. It was sticking to the point, because I was making the argument that just because some conspiracy charge against a president might be true, that is hardly a basis for launching a government investigation. One cannot start a government investigation as to whether a public official committed a crime using reasoning on the level of, "I think he's the kind of person who'd be likely to do that kind of thing." Responsible investigations are started because there is evidence of guilt.

0 Replies

And when did start doing that?

0 Replies

Brandon,

I believe investigations are performed to determine if there is evidence to support suspicions of guilt. Trials occur when there is evidence of guilt.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Responsible investigations are started because there is evidence of guilt.

At least in most other countries with English/Anglo-Saxon law and all with Roman law, investigations start before that.

When and if there is guilt - that's a matter of courts/judging committees/etc

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

Brandon,

I believe investigations are performed to determine if there is evidence to support suspicions of guilt. Trials occur when there is evidence of guilt.

I may not be using exactly the right words, but one does not start an investigation into a crime the president may have committed without some indication that he might have done it, beyond the level of hearsay. There has to be some solid reason to believe that he may be guilty of the crime beyond, "I figure he's the type of guy who would do that sort of thing." The way I pesonally would describe this is that if there is a small amount of evidentiary indication of guilt, you investigate to see whether or not he did it, and if he seems to have, to gather a larger amount if evidence to build a case, but describe it in any words you wish. My point is that I'd like to see some solid facts to support the idea that Bush knew about 9/11 and allowed it to happen deliberately. I have seen nothing to warrant the governmental inquiry that was called for here.

0 Replies

Quote:

No, it's not an unheard of idea, however it appears to be one that had not occured either to terrorists or anti-terrorist officials before. Prior to 9/11 terrorists had always hijacked planes as a means towards taking hostages, never as a means of attacking a ground target. This was quite clearly the point Condi was making, and also quite clearly not evidence that she was lying as this little gem of journalism claims.

Hmm, I believe that creative thinking isn't a requirement for American top politicians and officials. Slovenia isn't any better on this point.

Of course, when it comes to creative thinking about how to squeeze some of that budget juice, well i believe THAT is a different kind of thinking..

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Responsible investigations are started because there is evidence of guilt.

At least in most other countries with English/Anglo-Saxon law and all with Roman law, investigations start before that.

When and if there is guilt - that's a matter of courts/judging committees/etc

Disagree completely. The police won't investigate a serious crime without some sort of evidence of guilt.

0 Replies

And if we develop that, if all first-timers are bound to succeed and pass the security, terrorists are going to start to put some creative people on THEIR payroll.
What about that?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote

Quote:

I may not be using exactly the right words, but one does not start an investigation into a crime the president may have committed without some indication that he might have done it, beyond the level of hearsay. There has to be some solid reason to believe that he may be guilty of the crime beyond, "I figure he's the type of guy who would do that sort of thing."

And where is evidence to come from if not an investigation? This is a circularly deadlocked position tailored for protection.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Responsible investigations are started because there is evidence of guilt.

At least in most other countries with English/Anglo-Saxon law and all with Roman law, investigations start before that.

When and if there is guilt - that's a matter of courts/judging committees/etc

Disagree completely. The police won't investigate a serious crime without some sort of evidence of guilt.

Hmm - might well be that your knowledge of Roman Law (like it is practised here in Europe and several other countries) is superior to mine.
Certainly it will be in English/Anglo-Saxon law.

However, in this case I (and hundredthousands others) have been taught law the wrong way.
And the police is acting completely unlawful.

0 Replies

If I were to tell you that in the future, someone may steal your wallet, would you start an investigation to find out who it will, when it will be, and how it will be done, or would you just try to keep an eye on your wallet and try to keep it safe?

What if someone else then said someone may try to steal your keys. Then someone else said someone may try to steal your sandwich at work, then someone else says that someone might try to kill your dog.

Will you start an investigation into each of these accusations?

0 Replies

Why Ms Rice won't testify under oath ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know