"Just ask the right questions, or observe what actually goes on"
We agree on that
On the rest of it, I doubt it's the black-and-white image you would like, altho' many of the allegations he brings can withstand legal scrutiny, the statute of limitations has passed, or the people have passed.
These discoveries were not intended for litigation, altho' no doubt some will lead to that in the future.
They are for enlightenment and protection of our way of life.
You must be a lawyer, not a journalist, right?
In a sense, you're right. Without scrutiny of our neighbors and newspapers we'd have the risk of someone in law-enforcement who didn't like our style knocking down our door and shooting us in our homes. Certainly, legislation doesn't prevent that - the drug wars have produced multiple instances of innocents being killed in their own homes by over-zealous DEA teams. That is so blatant it is nearly impossible to conceal, therefore it doesn't happen very often at all, considering how many doors and knocked down every week by the DEA and local law-enforcement. Aside from paying both criminals and law-enforcement through the nose for this phony war, we're relatively safe (except for Carlson, Ramirez, Williams, etc.:http://members.tripod.com/canada_firearms/gun%20control/no%20knock%20warrants.htm)
Another example - that unfortunate Baxter fellow in Texas might have been a suicide. Frankly, I doubt it. However, if there were yet another one or two, I wouldn't be the only doubter, and there would be a troublesome investigation. That's another brake on any such "netherworld" people, as you call it, from, as you put it, killing everyone or putting them in an asylum.
Also, some of these investigators like Bamford understand the risk and say "screw it", and pursue the truth anyway, and others are sufficiently published that it provides protection since suspicious action against them would tend to be incriminating.
The Y2K issue is an amusing one since nothing happened, but even today's administration claims plots were hatched, but failed to execute. My wife and I walked the streets of a major city to see, basically, a fortified ghost town.
Personally, I don't care about trials as much as I do about informed data from first-hand participants.
Re: your other comments -
Bush Senior - lost due to Perot's entrance in the race. Many dirty tricks were played to get Perot not to run. I participated in the Perot campaign and saw these first-hand.
The threats to Perot were too late to give Bush the election.
Perot is a personally courageous individual, and is not threatened easily. It was his family that was threatened. And it worked.
Bush II didn't have a chance. But he won anyway, for a lot of reasons we don't need to detail here, and which you and I would disagree about. It was a squeaker, but we'd have had 9/11 anyway - that action respected no party. |
