Lawsuit claiming Bush knew or should have known about 9/11 beforehand

[Chewbacca]

Zoiks! I didnt know you could sue the President like this! Is this a hoax or what? The article describes how most of the press has totally ignored this.


http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0312/S00040.htm

*SNIP* Grieving New Hampshire widow who lost her man on 9/11 refuses the government's million dollar hush money payoff, studies the facts of the day for nearly two years, and comes to believe the White House "intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen" to launch a so-called "War on Terrorism" for personal and political gain. She retains a prominent lawyer, a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, who served with distinction under both Democrats and Republicans and was once a strong candidate for the governor's seat. The attorney files a 62-page complaint in federal district court (including 40 pages of prima facie evidence) charging that "President Bush and officials including, but not limited to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft and Tenet": 1.) had adequate foreknowledge of 911 yet failed to warn the county or attempt to prevent it; 2.) have since been covering up the truth of that day; 3.) have therefore abetted the murder of plaintiff's husband and violated the Constitution and multiple laws of the United States; and 4.) are thus being sued under the Civil RICO (Racketeering, Influence, and Corrupt Organization) Act for malfeasant conspiracy, obstruction of justice and wrongful death. The suit text goes on to document the detailed forewarnings from foreign governments and FBI agents; the unprecedented delinquency of our air defense; the inexplicable half hour dawdle of our Commander in Chief at a primary school after hearing the nation was under deadly attack; the incessant invocation of national security and executive privilege to suppress the facts; and the obstruction of all subsequent efforts to investigate the disaster. It concludes that "compelling evidence will be presented in this case through discovery, subpoena power, and testimony [that] Defendants failed to act and prevent 9/11 knowing the attacks would lead toâ€| an 'International War on Terror' which would benefit Defendants both financially and politically."

Here is a link to a text of the Lawsuit:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0311/S00224.htm

[ 01-09-2004, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Davros]

Now I can't be said to be a lover of the current US President, but this looks to be a trumped up consiracy theorist's bad dream. Apart from the fact that it is an outrageous accusation to make against the leader of a country, hard evidence will be needed to build that case, and the bits they put forward look tissue thin supposition.

[khazadman]

This is nothing but more than another idiotic conspiracy theory. And like the Di was murdered theory, or the one where FDR allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, it's all a bunch of horse manure.

[Night Stalker]

Actually, the FDR and JFK theories have interesting nuggets in them. I don't know anything about the Lady Di situation.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

But it illustrates one of the most wondrous benefits of living in the U.S.A.

Even though the case appears to be nothing more than a desparate and absurd attempt to "clutch at straws" by the defendent and her attorney....at least they DO have the freedom to actual file such a lawsuit against the leader of the country.

There are many lands where the mere thought of such an action would mean the death of the widow and lawyer involved.

I don't agree with the lawsuit, but you gotta love the fact that such a lawsuit (and challenge) can be filed against our President with relatively little fear of repercussion.

[Night Stalker]

Technically the President is supposed to be exempt from civil and criminal suits while in office AFAIR. To bring such actions against the President, he is supposed to be removed through Impeachment hearings and then subject to action.

I may be fuzzy on this though. But, going by this criteria, I do think that Pres Clinton got the short end when they allowed those harrassment suits to be brought against him while in office. His actions after the suit was brought against him deserved the Impeachment, but I don't think he should have been put in that situation in the first place.

(Did I just defend Clinton? [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] )

Cerek, basicly the US government decides if you can sue the government so we will see what they say.

From what I have read there will be no basis for a claim here as there were no SPECIFIC threats, just general reports in the Presidents daily morning briefing saying that there were rumors of terror threats but of nothing specific.

[ 01-10-2004, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Davros]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I don't agree with the lawsuit, but you gotta love the fact that such a lawsuit (and challenge) can be filed against our President with relatively little fear of repercussion.

Well there is this thing called the patriot act that has more than a few available repercussions - I mean, suing your leader - maybe it's just me, but that would surely be pretty dang unpatriotic wouldn't it - let's not starrt down that path. Let's haul their asses in for questioning for a couple of weeks on some spurious suggestions - that ought to teach them a lesson about bringng spurious lawsuits.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Davros: Now I can't be said to be a lover of the current US President, but this looks to be a trumped up consiracy theorist's bad dream. Apart from the fact that it is an outrageous accusation to make against the leader of a country, hard evidence will be needed to build that case, and the bits they put forward look tissue thin supposition.

Indeed, we are basically on the same page, which is why I thought this lawsuit was a hoax designed for PR purposes. Though I will be tracking this case out of curiosity, that is if it actually surfaces in the news again.

[Timber Loftis]

MagiK is right that the government decides who can sue it, as basic immunity exists absent a statute allowing the suit. However, the federal government has been fairly generous in what it allows itself to be sued upon. Note that Congress made this decision many years prior, via statute.

I like Cerek's post. He's been doing a great job of speaking plainly, bluntly, honestly, and correctly of late.

If it is true, so be it. However, I'll defend the admin. to a degree here. If, among the thousands of threat alerts the admin. gets all the time you can piece together a puzzle showing negligence on their part, fine. However, in a judicial review of such lack of judgment we would have to inquire as to whether it was so obvious that the leads they got regarding 9/11 prior to 9/11 were credible and serious enough for them to investigate.

Let's face it, we have over 300 million people in our borders to police, and not enough investigators to thoroughly investigate every little hint or tip. Since 9/11 we're trying more, but anyone who's ever managed massive amounts of info knows the difficulty of piecing it all together to accurately predict the future.