Most present-day murder investigations are routinely thorough, especially if they are conducted by state and city law enforcement agencies. This is because state and municipal police agencies are, by and large, routinely independent in their ferreting-out of the facts of each case by scientific crime scene analysis. And, in most cases, they eventually discover and arrest the guilty suspect, who is later tried, ultimately convicted for the crime, and properly sentenced. At one time in early 20th Century U.S. history, federal murder investigations, conducted by the FBI, were also routinely thorough and fundamentally independent of political string-pulling by federal officers, elected and appointed, who had something to lose by the truth being publicly revealed. This was when the FBI functioned as an essentially impartial arm of the federal government, when the U.S. Attorney General, as the chief federal law enforcement officer, acted independently of the White House to truthfully solve federal crimes and to bring the culprits to justice. For, needless to say, when a standing U.S. President, or Vice-President, has the unconstitutional power to order an Attorney General, the FBI Director, and, perhaps, the Director of Central Intelligence, not to properly investigate all of the material and relevant evidence in a federal murder investigation, in order to obscure the truth, law, essentially, ceases to function. Another way of saying it is that, when those who are sworn to faithfully execute the law break the law with impunity, there is no more law, and something, more than mere useless rhetoric, needs to be done.
As a former county peace officer, my sensibilities were sorely inflamed directly after September 11, 2001, when the 9/11 mass murder investigation was turned over to a group of politicians instead of to seasoned state and city homicide investigators. The nation, after that awful day, was led to believe by the federal Executive Branch, via the media, that the only culprits who masterminded, and consummated, the WTC and Pentagon bombings were crazed Islamic militants belonging to a terrorist organization headed by Osama Bin Laden. The majority of the impressionable public initially saw no reason not to trust the declarations of the federal government. A majority of rank-and-file American citizens, between 25 and 40 years of age, accepted every statement released by the government as gospel truth. The FBI, and the other federal intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA, and DIA) insisted that those particular Muslims acted in an Islamic terrorist conspiracy by, supposedly, hijacking and flying commercial airliners into the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon wall, and that the utter destruction, and death, that followed was caused only by the impacts of the airliners into those structures. Yet, some very important forensic and timeline facts, not disclosed to the American public, weren't properly introduced into evidence prior to the 9/11 Commission Report, which made the quick, and haphazard, determinations of the 9/11 Commission ultimately suspect.
For instance, a typical crime scene in a normal murder investigation is roped-off and protected, for sometimes up to six months, so that all of the evidence may be thoroughly examined to determine, as closely as possible, how the murder(s) occurred and the plausible suspects. Current forensic science investigation methods and techniques are pretty well capable of correctly ascertaining what caused the prevailing conditions which caused the death(s) to occur. Nevertheless, after the efforts to save those numerous people trapped in the collapsed WTC wreckage ceased, a federally-ordered clean-up, instead of a crime scene investigation, began which caused the ground-zero crime-scene to disappear. Essential analyses, by CSI experts, were not made of the collapsed building materials in order to determine whether something, besides the exploding, and burning, aircraft, caused the towers to fall. Strange circumstantial facts, relevant evidence comprising events which transpired days before 9/11, were also not considered by the 9/11 Commission, such as a federally-ordered suspension of police, and bomb-sniffing dog, surveillance of the World Trade Center Towers two-days prior to the bombings, and lucrative insurance policies, held by the wealthy owners of the crime-scene property, and American and United Airlines stock, being substantially increased in value, days before 9/11. The hurried clean-up of ground-zero made it seem like someone, in a high commanding position, desperately wanted to avoid a possibly incriminating investigation of the existing evidence. And the facts clearly indicate that numerous 9/11 victims families emphatically called for a complete scientific investigation of the crime scene, instead of a speedy cleanup of ground-zero.
The body of evidence accumulated prior to the political determinations of the 9/11 Commission Report was comprised entirely of the federal Executive Branch's version of the alleged facts. On beginning their alleged investigation, the 9/11 Commission prejudicially ruled-out and negated the possibility of executive branch conspiratorial involvement in the bombings. This was not as it should have been. In a proper crime scene investigation, nothing at all is ruled-out at the outset of the analysis. The incremental study of all relevant and material evidence is the only basis for the elimination of suspects. Instead of cogently remembering Watergate and Iran-Contra as pronounced instances of sordid executive branch conspiracy and subterfuge, and considering the plausibility of such heinous crimes occurring again, the 9/11 Commission's political appointees disregarded the lessons learned from history and produced a report that smacked more of creative fiction than fact. Certainly, the 9/11 murder investigation would have turned-out quite differently had it been done by nine seasoned homicide investigators from the nine largest cities around the country.
Please consider the following: 1) Fighter jets apparently "misdirected" from airbases to intercept and destroy the, alleged, hijacked airliners flying toward the WTC Towers, 2) George W. Bush's seemingly nonchalant uncaring response to Andrew Card's announcement that a plane had just hit the first WTC Tower, 3) An incriminating statement from Bush at a California press conference, a few months after 9/11, that he saw the first WTC Tower aerial impact on television before he entered the Florida elementary school classroom, 4) The summary dismissal of a federal lawsuit brought by San Francisco attorney Stanley Hilton for over a hundred 9/11 victims' families, against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condilezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, not on a basis of "lack of evidence," but, rather, on "sovereign immunity." By dismissing Stanley Hilton's lawsuit on a basis of sovereign immunity, which would have been otherwise waged in federal court (much like the O. J. Simpson civil trial) on a basis of the preponderance of the credible evidence, the presiding San Francisco federal judge, Susan Illston, ruled that a standing U.S. President can do anything he, or she, wants, even committing mass murder, and an ordinary citizen has no standing to bring a lawsuit for damages. And concerning Bush's incriminating off-the-cuff statement in California, the only known video of the first WTC Tower aerial impact spent the day in the camera of the person making the video. According to the facts, it was first broadcast fifteen-hours after it had been recorded. So, if Bush had seen a video of the first aerial impact, it must have been one from a federal government communications network that had anticipated, or simulated, the alleged surprise attack.
Now let's proceed to the bold statements of attorney Stanley Hilton, former chief of staff for Senator Bob Dole, when he appeared live, after the dismissal of his lawsuit, on the Alex Jones Radio Show. It is factually correct that Hilton attended, and graduated from, the University of Chicago and was a contemporary there of neocon Paul Wolfowitz. Hilton also personally knew Dr. Leo Strauss, the pro-fascist professor who advocated turning the United States into a Presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a "bogus Pearl Harbor-like event." With an imperial presidency, the goal of neo-conservatism could be ultimately realized; that is, to incrementally create a new political world order, thereby subjugating sovereign state governments and economies, especially that of the United States, beneath a unitary banner of global corporate capitalism. In other words, such a system would create and maintain an economic caste system that would essentially control the lives of the U.S. middle-class, and especially the poor, through inflationary manipulation of a valueless floating paper currency, such as Federal Reserve notes.
But that's not all, folks. A presidential dictatorship thrives primarily on an illusionary fear, inculcated in the masses, of a common enemy, and the amorphous exaggerated concept of "national security." The best historical example of such a regime is that of Nazi Germany and the enthusiastic support of the German people for Hitler's invasions of Poland and France. Hitler cunningly manufactured the alleged Polish incursion, across the border, into Germany in 1939, and made the German people believe, and fear, that Poland was actually an imminent threat to German security. Professor Leo Strauss advocated such a plan for the federal government to embrace, and Paul Wolfowitz swallowed every whit of that fascist blueprint ideology. Some people, willing and unafraid to speak their minds, have described Wolfowitz as the master planner of the unjust pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.
Before that awful September day of infamy in 2001, Stanley Hilton was a successful attorney in San Francisco with a thriving law practice. His professional credentials speak for themselves and clearly adduce a scholarly, very capable individual exceptionally adept in the disciplines of law, journalism, and business. With a B.A. from the University of Chicago, Hilton went on to earn a law degree from Duke University. Then he went on to take an M.A. from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and, later, completed an M.A. in journalism from the University of North Carolina. In 1979, Hilton successfully took an M.B.A. from the Harvard Business School. So, are we talking about a crackpot when we discuss Hilton and his allegations against the federal executive branch? I think not, but, rather, a government insider who has the specific knowledge, experience, and the tenacious audacity to publicly accuse, at the risk of his own life, those wealthy affluent, seemingly untouchable, conspirators responsible for the carnage that occurred on 9/11.
On the Alex Jones September 2004 Radio Show, Hilton revealed the results of intensive interviews he had obtained with honest FBI agents, FEMA officers, and other federal officers who knew what was actually occurring on 9/11. He made it very clear that his lawsuit, representing over a hundred 9/11 victims' families, against Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al, was squarely predicated on documented incontrovertible evidence, not mere speculation, that Bush and his cohorts had planned for the many deaths that occurred on that fateful day. He also publicly revealed the despicably unlawful coercion used by Federal Judge Susan Illston, and John Ashcroft's Justice Department, to force him to drop the lawsuit. When Illston realized that she couldn't possibly force Hilton to drop the class-action lawsuit, she haughtily dismissed the action on a basis of sovereign immunity.
After carefully analyzing the facts about what actually occurred directly prior to, during, and directly after 9/11, especially the facts presented by Dr. David Ray Griffin, in his book "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11," Stanley Hilton's statements and assertions seem to ring true. Yet, Griffin based his book more on an independent French investigation of 9/11 than any other fact-producing investigatory effort by official U.S. government means, for there were more than a few French citizens who were killed in the collapse of the WTC Towers. And the people of France probably tired of watching the droll useless play that became the 9/11 Commission Report. Nonetheless, Hilton is saying that he knows from the express testimonies of federal officers, who risked their lives for truth, and from official documents, that George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney, planned, rehearsed multiple times, and ordered the actual crashes of the aircraft into the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11 A good question to ask yourself is how, exactly, would you feel on being 98 percent sure that your standing President was guilty of mass murder, and would leave office in 2008 without answering for his crimes. I don't know about you, but I would certainly be more than a little indignant. I would be totally livid.
When President George H. Bush, the son of the banker, and Nazi sympathizer, Prescott Bush, spoke publicly, in 1990, about a new world order, was he referring indirectly to the tragedy that would occur eleven years later which would completely transform the American republic into an expanded imperial presidency? Was Bill Clinton's reign as President a mere eight-year transitional buffer period that would usher-in eight years of George W. Bush's executive fascism? From where I stand, I can't see everything that conspiratorially occurred, from Bush's inauguration until September 11, as a product of only nine months of deceitful planning. It had to have started well before the 2000 Presidential Election. In an essay I wrote for the "Seattle Times," in 2005, I stated that history would eventually judge whether George W. Bush & Company were, and are, mass murderers. Yet, on rethinking the apathy and indifference that, no doubt, will fill the minds of readers, decades hence, who will scan the pages of history books and think diffidently of a man, long dead, who was truly responsible for thousands of needless American deaths, I pray that Bush's indictment, trial, and punishment will come sooner than by God in the fires of hell.
Norton R. Nowlin took M.A. and B.A. degrees in the social and behavioral sciences from the University of Texas at Tyler, studied law for one full year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California, and earned an ABA-approved advanced paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington. Mr. Nowlin has attended LaJolla, California's National University and Malibu's Pepperdine University to attain graduate credits in business management and economics. Mr. Nowlin also attained a Texas State Teaching Certification, in social studies and psychology, from the University of Texas at Tyler. A paralegal, published essayist, poet, and free-lance fiction writer, Mr. Nowlin resides in Northern Virginia with his wife, the renown math tutor, Diane C. Nowlin, and their two very intelligent cats.
No comments:
Post a Comment