Initiating A 9/11 Criminal Investigation
b y r o n c o r v u s
FACT: There has never been a criminal investigation
into the very worst government security failure in U.S. history.
FACT: Even the 9/11 Commission found that on September
11th, 2001, numerous government officials failed in their respective duties
to protect the American people from terrorist attack.
FACT: To-date, not one person has been held
accountable for the massive security failures on 9/11.
Here's a tip: Keep your eye on the ball.
What do you and I seek? We seek justice AND
accountability.
Justice for what? For the murder of thousands of
Americans on 9/11.
Accountability for what? For failing to protect
thousands of Americans inside the United States of America.
We seek a criminal investigation of the persons and
events of 9/11.
This means We The People seek to hold accountable
every government official who failed their duty to protect America.
What I'm saying is we need to focus on "Keeping It
Simple, Stupid."
We all know tons of evidence exists the WTC Towers
were demolished with explosives. I believe one day, this truth will emerge
in the course of this much-needed criminal investigation.
I'm simply recommending we restate our "causes belli."
Instead of demanding that Americans accept our theories and scientific
evidence as the basis for initiating a criminal investigation of 9/11, we
should demand and name accountability as the undisputed basis for a criminal
investigation.
THEN, once you get a true criminal investigation under
way, THEN YOU AND I KNOW THE BOTTOMLESS can of worms such an investigation
will yield and reveal. Let the parade of scientific evidence and witnesses
begin.
In other words, we need to marshall support from the
legal community, law enforcement and the NYC Fire Dept. in seeking a
criminal investigation into these matters by letting them know we support
them and the real need for accountability.
I dare say they won't get behind a guy with a box of
theories and scientific evidence (despite the vailidity), but they will get
behind the notion of holding government officials accountable for the deaths
of their fellow firefighters, police officers and EMT techs.
We need big name lawyers, like Vincent Bugliosi to get
on board and hold a big rally to foster a criminal investigation of 9/11.
New York firefighters, police officers, and EMT technicians should be best
friends in solidarity with Americans seeking a true, criminal investigation
into 9/11. These professionals KNOW WHAT HAPPENED!!!!!! They don't need any
theories - they were there! They know what happened and are the BEST
WITNESSES to appear before any grand jury.
If I were wealthy, I would MOVE TO New York
(temporarily) UNTIL I was able to garner the support of these local
professionals into holding some type of public sit-in or march or
protest.....till the U.S. attorney's office launches a criminal
investigation. Where's John Lennon when you need him? Paul isn't worth a
damn, in this regard. If Lennon was alive, Bush would catch far more hell
and protest than now. I can imagine John & Yoko staging a nude sit-in for
one million Americans at the White House, until the troops are brought home.
Imagine.
We've got to get public support and PRESSURE to
"insist" the U.S. Attorney's Office get busy with a criminal investigation
of, deminimus, all the known, involved parties. This is what counts! This is
what matters!
The government officials guilty of criminal acts
writhe in glee at the sound of Americans debating and arguing the endless
multiplicity of 9/11 conspiracy theories - valid or not.
I tell you what's NOT a theory: EVERYONE KNOWS, (even
the 9/11 Commission admitted) there were MASSIVE government failures on
9/11. No one has been held accountable yet. That's worth repeating:
NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE YET,
for their failure to protect the American people on Septmeber 11th, 2001.
Who would oppose our call for a criminal investigation
into 9/11? If you cited America's need for accountability regarding U.S.
government officials' massive security failures on 9/11, instead of any set
of "theories," then you could acquire the support required to initiate a
true, criminal investigation into 9/11. My opinion is, as long as you
showcase "theories" or even SOLID scientific evidence of criminal
wrongdoing, instead of highlighting the obvious, undeniable need for
accountability in the undeniably greatest government failure in U.S.
history, you won't be able to get the wide-spread support required to even
have a chance at getting a criminal investigation underway.
If you recall, immediately following 9/11, Cheney and
Bush publicly threatened members of Congress to cut programs, etc. if
Congress held any 9/11 investigation, period.
Funny how media pundits "forget" about that deal.
The investigation needs to focus on, inter alia, Dick
Cheney and Larry Silverstein.
What about Transportation Secretay Norm Mineta's
testimony before the 9/11 Commission?
You know, about Cheney issuing the "stand-down order."
As Vice-President, Cheney possessed ZERO authority to
issue orders to the military, and the evidence indicates Cheney clearly
broke the law that morning.
However, there are many, many suspects and hundreds of
"incidents" of "security failures," committed by government officials. Even
the 9/11 Commission and its commissioners noted there exists hundreds of
security failures committed by government officials. Those 9/11
commissioners admitted they were NOT a criminal investigative body, and did
not conduct any criminal investigation.
America must launch a criminal investigaton into 9/11,
or we'll be doomed to another permanent, national, collective state of
psychosis and paranoia, ala' the JFK assassination....not to mention justice
will go unserved and future deterrence of such crimes is out the window.
In a word, accountability. Let "accountability" and
"future deterrence of institutional negligence" be the seminal reasons for a
true, ongoing, in-depth, full criminal investigation of the persons and
events of 9/11. I'd like to hear O'Reilly argue against instituting
accountability in the most massive government failure in U.S. history.
Our attitude shouldn't be one of wonderment and
supposition, but of singular, strong steadfast adherence to accountability.
This is the 9/11 Truth movement. Truth is on our side: let's use it.
Indictment
Before the target of
an investigation is arrested, prosecutors generally will take the evidence
they have gathered to a grand jury. Grand juries are composed of 16 to 23
citizens. Agreement by a bare majority is required to find probable cause
exists that a crime was committed.
Grand juries are
formally supervised by a district judge, often the chief judge, but for all
practical purposes they function day-to-day under the auspices of the U.S.
Attorney's Office. Only prosecutors present evidence before a grand jury,
and a finding of probable cause – necessary to issue an indictment – is a
relatively low standard of proof.
The indictment lists
the crimes the defendant allegedly committed and describes the facts the
government believes support those allegations. It is a roadmap to what the
prosecution intends to prove at trial. Grand jury indictments are returned
to the district court – usually to a magistrate judge – in a sealed court
hearing. Indictments generally are unsealed after a defendant is arrested.
A criminal case also
can begin without an indictment. In these cases, the lead investigator
swears out a criminal complaint, called an "information," setting forth the
same kinds of allegations and facts that would be contained in an
indictment. Absent an indictment, the prosecution must convince a judge that
there is probable cause to proceed with the case. These hearings are held in
open court after the defendant has been arrested in a felony case. A
defendant can agree to waive indictment and proceed with the case based on
the criminal complaint, or can demand that the prosecutor seek an
indictment.
