How can the government investigate itself?
It can, of course.But the results are atrocious when it comes to presenting the undisputed facts of events.
To investigate the murder of President John Kennedy, the new President, Lyndon Johnson, appointed a commission of seven members to what became known as the Warren Commission.This commission took the place of other groups that sought to call witnesses and examine evidence, such as a grand jury in Texas.
The Warren Report did not deliver the facts of the case.Instead it ignored reliable witnesses and allowed fabricated evidence in its conclusion, which was designed to blame an innocent person for what only agents of the government could have done.
Other government agencies and commissions have failed to arrive at the truth.A group of Los Angeles Police Department officers, including Robert Houghton, wrote Special Unit Senator to give the government's account of the murder of Robert Kennedy.They, too, framed an innocent person in part by distorting the distance and the direction the accused was in relation to Kennedy and ignoring overwhelming evidence of bullets unaccounted for.
Many years after the fact, a Congressional committee considered the "October Surprise" story of Ronald Reagan campaign advisors making a deal with the Iranian leaders to delay the release of United States hostages.The Committee ignored evidence of the Iranians suddenly becoming uninterested in talking to the Jimmy Carter Administration, pilot testimony of flying Reagan's representatives to France and Vice-Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush's hollow alibi in whitewashing the whole story.
Now our nation needs the truth about the attacks of 9/11 and other incidents so as to form the best policy in regards to our security. Already another presidential commission has assured us that the government was not involved in the attacks.It is time to use a different method to get the truth before the perpetrators strike again.
We could use a grand jury in New York to gather testimony and allow the panel to decide whom to indict and then send the accused to trial.But while it sounds ideal to use our legal system in this way, our court system has shown little success in convicted agents of the government and there is little reason for this to be any different.
The solution is to let the public decide.
Let the "conspiracy" researchers like Michael Ruppert, James Fetzer and Alex Jones form a team, allow them to assemble their final conclusion based on fulfilling the elements of crimes and then allow them to be cross-examined by government officials and anyone else who believes the official theory.The government could then present its own evidence and after a reasonable amount of cross-examination, the two sides would finish their cases.
Then let the public cast its votes on who told the truth.We would have polling places in the same manner as elections and only persons sworn to neutrality would count the votes as to which side it believed.No matter the tally, people would still debate 9/11 but because two sides would compete in an adversarial process, we would all know more about the truth than ever before.
It can, of course.But the results are atrocious when it comes to presenting the undisputed facts of events.
To investigate the murder of President John Kennedy, the new President, Lyndon Johnson, appointed a commission of seven members to what became known as the Warren Commission.This commission took the place of other groups that sought to call witnesses and examine evidence, such as a grand jury in Texas.
The Warren Report did not deliver the facts of the case.Instead it ignored reliable witnesses and allowed fabricated evidence in its conclusion, which was designed to blame an innocent person for what only agents of the government could have done.
Other government agencies and commissions have failed to arrive at the truth.A group of Los Angeles Police Department officers, including Robert Houghton, wrote Special Unit Senator to give the government's account of the murder of Robert Kennedy.They, too, framed an innocent person in part by distorting the distance and the direction the accused was in relation to Kennedy and ignoring overwhelming evidence of bullets unaccounted for.
Many years after the fact, a Congressional committee considered the "October Surprise" story of Ronald Reagan campaign advisors making a deal with the Iranian leaders to delay the release of United States hostages.The Committee ignored evidence of the Iranians suddenly becoming uninterested in talking to the Jimmy Carter Administration, pilot testimony of flying Reagan's representatives to France and Vice-Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush's hollow alibi in whitewashing the whole story.
Now our nation needs the truth about the attacks of 9/11 and other incidents so as to form the best policy in regards to our security. Already another presidential commission has assured us that the government was not involved in the attacks.It is time to use a different method to get the truth before the perpetrators strike again.
We could use a grand jury in New York to gather testimony and allow the panel to decide whom to indict and then send the accused to trial.But while it sounds ideal to use our legal system in this way, our court system has shown little success in convicted agents of the government and there is little reason for this to be any different.
The solution is to let the public decide.
Let the "conspiracy" researchers like Michael Ruppert, James Fetzer and Alex Jones form a team, allow them to assemble their final conclusion based on fulfilling the elements of crimes and then allow them to be cross-examined by government officials and anyone else who believes the official theory.The government could then present its own evidence and after a reasonable amount of cross-examination, the two sides would finish their cases.
Then let the public cast its votes on who told the truth.We would have polling places in the same manner as elections and only persons sworn to neutrality would count the votes as to which side it believed.No matter the tally, people would still debate 9/11 but because two sides would compete in an adversarial process, we would all know more about the truth than ever before.
RSS Feed