Walter Hinteler wrote: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.
A typical scenario might be that the police answer a call from a delicatessen reporting a burglary. Officers canvas the immediate area and find a witness who says, "I saw someone who looked like John Smith running out of the store with a gun." That's the first piece of evidence. The police also find John Smith's fingerprints on the store cash register. That's the second piece of evidence. They then proceed to Smith's home and interview him, during the process of which they find a third piece of evidence. Because there is some evidence that John Smith might have committed the crime, they formally charge him with the crime and only then try him. In preparation for the trial, investigators seek further evidence. This seems odd to you?
What they don't do is say, "Hey, you know that Smith guy seems like the type who probably robs convenience stores. Let's investigate him.
McGentrix:
Quote: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?
Yes,I would, and I'd hide that fact from you at all costs. Wouldn't want you to think I'll react to anything you throw at me. I'll react to the inputs I think are relevant and I'll decide what they are dynamically. As long as I can - when I'm owerwhelmed I willl find better strategies.
Actually, Brandon, they do just exactly that in certain cases--the most common victims of such behavior describe their offense as "driving while black."
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.
I should have said that the police won't investigate a crime without evidence that there's been a crime, and the DA won't charge someone without evidence of guilt.
Setanta wrote:Actually, Brandon, they do just exactly that in certain cases--the most common victims of such behavior describe their offense as "driving while black."
Good point! But I don't think it's a valid practice.
Neither do i, Boss, however, what you or i think on the subject has no bearing on whether or not it continues. Since the September 11th debacle, it has been enshrined in the attitude shown toward those who appear to be of arabic extraction. I have dark curly hair--otherwise, i bear no resemblance to semitic types such as Arabs. Nevertheless, as i frequently cross the border from Canada to the United States, i have been frequently questioned closely, on an assumption that i'm of Arabic extraction. In fact, my features result from my Keltic ancestry, but try telling that to someone who is paranoid, and already disposed to look for "the outward signs of sin."
I thought it was up to a judge and jury to prove guilt and up to the police et al. to prove a crime has been committed.
You need to hang around with more cops.
But I think the discussion has wandered far afield. What we are looking at is more akin to an accident investigation than a stick-up or Mc "somebody's going to steal your keys." What we want to look at is how the events of 9/11 occurred and why. What folks in the current administration don't want to happen is for somebody to determine they screwed up because they were looking the wrong way. They could admit to such an assertion beforehand if they had the balls to do so, and like Clark apologize and ask for the public's indulgence on the matter. Something like, okay, we got it now. Americans like that sort of thing, but this bunch won't take any responsiblity for 9/11 despite the fact that they were looking the wrong way, focusing instead on StarWars Missile Defense Systems and passing huge tax cuts.
We need too to look at what this administration's efforts were AFTER 9/11, how they have conducted the American response. It becomes more evident each day that they didn't stay on target, they diverted their attention again the wrong way to Iraq and have given the terrorists of the world a great deal of time to regroup and a superb propaganda target to be used to enlist future terrorists.
They failed and they are in the process of failing again because they are stuck in time. Rumsfeld, Wolfie, Rice, Ashcroft all seem to think that the world in still divided First World, Third World, Middle and it's not. It hasn't been that way since the Wall came down.
Ceili wrote:I thought it was up to a judge and jury to prove guilt and up to the police et al. to prove a crime has been committed.
It is. Are you even reading the posts? I said that the police will not investigate unless there is evidence that there is a crime to investigate, and a DA will not charge a person without evidence that he might be guilty. When did I mention proof?
Joe Nation wrote:You need to hang around with more cops.
But I think the discussion has wandered far afield. What we are looking at is more akin to an accident investigation than a stick-up or Mc "somebody's going to steal your keys.".....
Fine, but I am specifically challenging an assertion that was made in this thread that the government should initiate an investigation into whether Bush et al knew about 9/11 before it happened and deliberately allowed it to occur to facilitate starting a war against Iraq.
My point is that you don't start a government investigation into whether the president engaged in a criminal conspiracy if you have no more firm reason for it than that he might have.
McTag wrote: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.
I do not believe that anyone in the government would knowingly sit by and let 9/11 happen, and I can't believe that you could believe it.
Relative wrote: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.
Your comments don't alter the reality that the citation's claim that they've caught Condi in a lie on this is specious.
Jer
Jer, excellent post. Confirms what others have been saying.
BBB
Thanks Jer
It is damn difficult to sus out these matters without documentation. That's probably one reason shredders are so popular. I don't know if the Govt. was complict in 911, negligent or perfectly alright with their actions or non-actions. That's what investigations are supposed to be about. I do find the matter to be suspicious on many levels, pre 911,the day of and afterward.
It is well documented that the Pres. and his staff referred to a nexus between Saddam and 911 in an indirect manner and did so purposely many times. When the American public was polled well over 60% thought that Saddam was involved. They didn't dream that notion up on their own. Also, that Saddam was allied with Osama in some way was pushed a lot of times.
That the Admin. misrepresented the Saddam situation is well documented. The push for the invasion of Iraq is well documented and when that push first began. The investigations are clearly warrented. I do have doubts that they are being conducted fully and agressively publicly. There have been hundreds of hours of behind closed door meetings on this matter, however.
That we the public will know the extent of these matters within the next months or years is doubtful. Perhaps 20 or more years from now the full info. will be revealed and most likely not by the Govt.
Quote:The administration could make terrorism a priority while choosing not to focus that effort specifically on Bin Laden.
But scrat, they offer up that explanation to respond about charges of neglecting Al Queda (?however spelled) and Bin Laden pre 9/11.
DISCLAIMER: I don't believe anybody, especially not US goverment, would knowingly allow, let alone provoke, anything similar to WTC disaster.
I am merely of opinion that some politicians and high officers, sometimes worry a lot more about remaining on top than the things they are paid for.
They tend not to be creative on their jobs, because being creative in goverment is futile except when in opposition and trying to get to the top.
I believe most of the damage is done because of a little ignorance - the ruler's job is extremely dangerous.
If you are going to be completely fair about this, the Clinton administration was concerned about Bin Laden and Al Qaida long before Clinton left office. They even lobbed a few missiles in their direction.
But if the Clinton administration didn't 'focus' on this even after the first WTC bombing and were unsuccessful in taking out Al Qaida in eight years, please cut the current administration some slack for not getting the job done in the eight months they had prior to the second WTC bombing.
Foxfyre
Scrat wrote:McTag wrote: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.
I do not believe that anyone in the government would knowingly sit by and let 9/11 happen, and I can't believe that you could believe it.
Then, Scrat, I'm afraid I am going to have to disappoint you. Although as I stated above somewhere, the actual extent of what the terrorists were capable of was probably not imagined; definitely not imaginable, I would say. Nevertheless, I would think it quite possible that schemers like Rumsfeld would be willing to risk an event like the earlier WTC bombing to galvanise public opinion behind him and his plans to better control the Middle East.
Personally, I could not believe the vote in Congress for the war; there was only one dissenting voice. I wonder how that vote would go now.
