How shall We approach this?

Refering to the 911 Scholars Symposium. I was watching and listening to the four guys... Steve Jones, Bowman, Tarpley, and Fetzer, and each of them were good in different ways. Fetzer was impassioned from his depths, I think, and Tarpley had a lot of info at his "neuron tips," and Prof. Jones was just bemused and really kind of out of his natural environment and it showed. He acted like a kid who has discovered a new toy and doesn't realize it is a loaded gun with the safety off. Bowman was politicking - maybe he's sincere, I don't know.
Anyway, combined, they did produce a strong impression that might sway a lot of people to their view which includes arresting Bush and the whole gang for treason. Bowman even says that if he is elected to congress, he'll make it an issue "on the hill."
So, the question is, of course, why are they being allowed to have even a toe in the door?

That was my first question and as I was listening to all of them pat themselves on the back that they were NOW getting a lot of attention, that people were opening up and seeing the truth, and it was just a matter of time before the whole thing blows wide open, I could only think: You don't know what you are dealing with. Facing down psychopaths isn't going to be that easy.

For example, they are all talking big about arresting the Neocon gang en masse and "taking back the government."

Okay, try to imagine the steps by which this might be done.
Go ahead... think!
The first thing is: who is going to do it?

Alex Jones? Webster Tarpley? A group of 911 researchers?

Do you think that, if they had the remotest chance of doing such a thing that they would be allowed to leave their houses on the day they plan to execute said warrant in anything other than a bodybag?

Who, pray tell, is going to back the fearless 911 gang with plans to arrest the President and most of Congress? A gang of NRA aficionados armed to the teeth? What do you think will happen?
Come on now, think! Think ARMY vs. rabble with hunting rifles and maybe an odd AK 47 here and there.

And even if you did manage to actually take the perps into custody, who is going to try the case and before what judge that hasn't been bought and paid for by the Neocons?

Picture the scenario: a group of U.S. citizens band together and start REALLY pushing to go after Bush and Cheney...
Can you give me a script here? I'm having a hard time getting beyond the idea that all of them would be immediately arrested as "enemy combatants".

So now it is time to have a peek at some of the reality;
Shield sought for US personnel from 1996 war crimes act

Charges feared in detainee cases

By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post | July 28, 2006

WASHINGTON -- An obscure law approved by a Republican-controlled Congress a decade ago has made the Bush administration nervous that officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes and prosecuted in US courts.

Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant US personnel involved in the terrorism fight new protections against prosecution for past violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996. That law criminalizes violations of the Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war and threatens the death penalty if US-held detainees die in custody from abusive treatment.

In light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that said international conventions apply to the treatment of such detainees, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has spoken privately with Republican lawmakers about the need for such protections, according to someone who heard his remarks last week.
Gonzales told the lawmakers that a shield was needed for actions taken by US

personnel under a 2002 presidential order, which the Supreme Court declared illegal, and under Justice Department legal opinions that have been withdrawn under fire, the source said. A spokeswoman for Gonzales, Tasia Scolinos, declined to comment on Gonzales's remarks.

Language in the administration's draft, which was prepared by officials in the Justice and Defense departments, seeks to protect US personnel by ruling out detainee lawsuits to enforce Geneva protections and by making US enforcement of the War Crimes Act subject to US -- not foreign -- understandings of what the Conventions require.

The aim, Justice Department lawyers say, is also to take advantage of US legal precedents that limit sanctions to conduct that ''shocks the conscience." This phrase allows the courts to consider the context in which abusive treatment occurs, such as an urgent need for information, the lawyers say -- even though the Geneva prohibitions are absolute.

Now, read this next one - this ought to shiver your timbers:
Bush Submits New Terror Detainee Bill

By Anne Plummer Flaherty The Associated Press Friday 28 July 2006

Washington - U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.
A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.
Administration officials, who declined to comment on the draft, said the proposal was still under discussion and no final decisions had been made.

Senior officials are expected to discuss a final proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee next Wednesday.
According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all "enemy combatants" until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone "engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute."
Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda.

"That's the big question ... the definition of who can be detained," said Martin Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University who posted a copy of the bill to a Web blog.
Scott L. Silliman, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, said the broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court - and all the rights that come with it. Administration officials have said they want to establish a secret court to try enemy combatants that factor in realities of the battlefield and would protect classified information.
The administration's proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony.

Senior Republican lawmakers have said they were briefed on the general discussions and have some concerns but are awaiting a final proposal before commenting on specifics.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England are expected to discuss the proposal in an open hearing next Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Military lawyers also are scheduled to testify Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The legislation is the administration's response to a June 29 Supreme Court decision, which concluded the Pentagon could not prosecute military detainees using secret tribunals established soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The court ruled the tribunals were not authorized by law and violated treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which established many international laws for warfare.

The landmark court decision countered long-held assertions by the Bush administration that the president did not need permission from Congress to prosecute "enemy combatants" captured in the war on terror and that al Qaeda members were not subject to Geneva Convention protections because of their unconventional status.

"In a time of ongoing armed conflict, it is neither practicable nor appropriate for enemy combatants like al Qaeda terrorists to be tried like American citizens in federal courts or courts-martial," the proposal states.

The draft proposal contends that an existing law - passed by the Senate last year after exhaustive negotiations between the White House and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. - that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment should "fully satisfy" the nation's obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Friday he expects to take up the detainee legislation in September.

Now, we already know that the Neocon/Zionist consortium has control of Congress. No matter how many questions or doubts they say they have about this bill, they will roll over and pass this legislation. In fact, any discussion at all is just for show. We know that already because we have seen it happen again and again.

Now, consider what Paul Craig Roberts wrote about Bush's illegal spying...
Bush's acts of illegal domestic spying are gratuitous because there are no valid reasons for Bush to illegally spy. The Foreign Intelligence Services Act gives Bush all the power he needs to spy on terrorist suspects. All the administration is required to do is to apply to a secret FISA court for warrants. The Act permits the administration to spy first and then apply for a warrant, should time be of the essence. The problem is that Bush has totally ignored the law and the court.

Why would President Bush ignore the law and the FISA court? It is certainly not because the court in its three decades of existence was uncooperative. According to attorney Martin Garbus (New York Observer, 12-28-05), the secret court has issued more warrants than all federal district judges combined, only once denying a warrant.

Why, then, has the administration created another scandal for itself on top of the WMD, torture, hurricane, and illegal detention scandals?

There are two possible reasons.

One reason is that the Bush administration is being used to concentrate power in the executive. The old conservative movement, which honors the separation of powers, has been swept away. Its place has been taken by a neoconservative movement that worships executive power.

The other reason is that ** the Bush administration could not go to the FISA secret court for warrants because it was not spying for legitimate reasons and, therefore, had to keep the court in the dark about its activities. **

What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election?

Could we attribute the feebleness of the Democrats as an opposition party to information obtained through illegal spying that would subject them to blackmail?

When Roberts suggests
"What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election? "
... he doesn't really go the full distance.

What if the illegal spying is to gain complete control of government and judiciary? Everybody has dirty laundry, and if you have that information, you can control about anything. The only people you can't control are those who are "clean" and we can guess from the way things are going in the U.S. and UK, just about everybody is "dirty."

Americans turned out in record numbers to vote in the last election. They NEVER do that unless they are unhappy with the status quo. The exit polls and evidence of vote tampering suggests strongly that Bush did not win the election... (which is not to say that Kerry was any better choice!)

So, not only do they have control of congress and the judiciary, they also control the votes... As Stalin said, it's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes. And with control of congress and the judiciary AND the support of the Israeli owned media, there is NO possibility of them being made accountable for ANY of their crimes.

So, considering the cards that the Neocons are holding in terms of illegal spying, I think we need to be realistic and understand that even the next election is not going to change anything.

Oh, they may make a show of running Jeb Bush for president, or even some dark horse we don't know about. But with the controls this cabal has already, there is ZERO possibility of fundamental change in course.

And that means that all those folks getting up and speaking out about 911 may very well be the first to be rounded up as enemy combatants under Bush's new law once it is passed.

In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards...

When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them. ...

The first rule of warfare is: KNOW your enemy and the whole 911 crowd is so focused on their theories, blinded by their egos, and unaware of the larger context in which 911 must be placed that they are little more than sheep being led to the slaughter by the Pied Pipers of the "Third Rank Alternative Press" and 911 Truth organizations - people like Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Gerard Holmgren, Rosalee Grable, Alex Constantine, and their associates and fans.


At last someone asking the obvious question!

At the end of the day, knowing the truth is not enough. If we assume that everything we suspect about 911 to be fact, with all that that must say for the perpetrators, then none of this does us any good whatsoever unless we are willing to DO something about it.

If we indeed assume that it is as we suspect, then frankly I would not put it past the Neocons to have planned, in their very own perverse way, precisely for this contingency. What better confirmation of POWER where the people KNOW what those who with it have done in order to get it? Where even if not be formerly acknowledged, yea even though the history books were only ever written with the "official version", everybody KNOWS what really is the truth?

At the end of the day, the question is "what are you going to do about it?". Don't get me wrong, I am not happy about the situation. However, as I wrote in a comment yesterday elsewhere, my late father always used to tell me that "politics is a DIRTY game". It always has been.

The question is also whether, again assuming that everything Alex Jones has been telling us is solid fact, that we are willing to do something about the fact that cirka 3000 of our fellow human beings - husbands, fathers, wives, mothers, brothers, sisters - are just snuffed out in an instant for some political convenience. And here is where it starts to hurt. My feeling is (and O Christ, His Name not in vain, I despise this) that most of us are still going to just carry on with our lives as best we can.

Are you really going to sacrifice your job, your life, and the things that are important to you? Yes we know the moral argument, often quoted on 911 blogger, that he who sacrifices his freedom for security deserves neither. Perhaps that is our collective damnation. We are all in this together, and have accepted (whether we admit it or not) our political masters' diabolical modus operandi whether we like it or not - because at the end of the day none of us is going to do anything about it.

If this makes you feel indignant - which of course it should - consider that we are damned today by our own importance. You as an individual can protest all you like, but it will take far more than "educating" your fellows to get something done. If we were to take the moral argument to its logical conclusion (and DO something about what we know to be wrong), then it is not going to be individuals then either - but a collective uprising to which you as an individual would be BOUND to be a part of.

Ironically, Mr Bush and Cheney would (in that case) be completely right. We should have begun a war that would not end in our lifetime. That is what it would be - war. That is why you as an individual would be bound, because you would have to decide where in that War you were going to stand.

Most likely, however, most of us are going to carry on as best we can. Knowing what has happened is not going to change anything. Can we sleep with a good conscience? Probably not. Morally, we have made ourselves responsible for the deaths of those 3000 people, because we are afraid of our own.

Like my father used to say, politics is a DIRTY game. It be then of some comfort to know that it ever was thus.

I would like to see this

I would like to see this administration have live, unsensored debate of the 911 fact.

The neocons could only be

The neocons could only be "arrested" via a military coup. I wouldn't hold your breath, frankly. I'm involved in this movement because it exposes the massive criminality of the state and educates people about the tactic of false flag operations. I do believe a revolution of sorts will come eventually, instituting massive change, not only in America but around the world, but sad to say, Dick Cheney will probably be dead by then.

live, unsensored debate

Yes, that would be great. However, as is said and to a much greater degree by Mike above.... they will not be forced into such a clear trap to tip their own hand.

Who will serve the subpoenas?

What court will hear the case?

What jury will be allowed to consider the the facts?

What militia, save for millions of raw bodies (soft targets for tanks) will make change before bigger buttons get pushed?

The rug most surly needs to be pulled out from under these despots, for the future of humanity.

We discuss all our thoughts and ideas here in a public forum, knowing full well the enemy can read every word, yet our chance for survival may likely come from a supprise attack upon them (now a "crime" to attempt any such through secret, as Americans will not believe their government deserves such consideration).

We have chosen to discuss our ideas, in the open.... I have chosen to do so, not because I think we can solve this easily through a domestic up-rise.... but because these words can be viewed, stored, and sympathized by many of the good people around the globe who I'm quite confidant are out their, no matter the endless vilification through media.

We are faced with a very difficult choice.... continue in this public "display" of hope and reason. Or, be driven deep underground into secrecy (the weapon of our enemy) so that we may plot potentially effective strategy and tactic against their force.

I do accept a feeling of being BOUND into a grouping of previous individuals. But I will not enter into a "death-pact" should someday I see the group dumbing down in its think. My fundamental prerogative as an individual, possessing survival instincts more advanced than a lemming.

So, here we are.... all of us talking out-loud in hopes of persuading help and devising plans, as much as tipping our hand to the enemy spy.

Truth, is our best and FINAL weapon. What a fine piece of equipment it is.

Without taking anything away

Without taking anything away from the elegant words spoken above, I must come to the defense of that much-maligned species, the lemming. They do not, in fact, make a habit of running of cliffs. The practice in question was rather a manufactured incident like 911 whereby a pack of the hapless rodents were flown down to Alberta from Alaska and driven off a cliff in order to make an interesting segment for a Disney psuedo-documentary. The humanity!

Let's not forget that the

Let's not forget that the most likely architect of 911 (or at least a co-architecht), Paul Wolfowitz, is currently head of the world bank. Perverseley (considering what he has done), he has a Muslim mistress.

There was a fascinating

There was a fascinating article written about Wolfowitz (I forget the title, sorry) a ways back stating that while working at the Pentagon, he had a painting on his wall depicting the bloodiest day of the American civil war. This is how these elites think: they regard it as their DUTY to foment massive bloodshed for their perceived "greater good". They think in completely different terms than you and I: the means always justify the ends. You are a pawn on their grand chessboard. What they forget is that, as Huxley once wrote, the means DETERMINE the ends. Means and ends are one and the same.

*ends justify the means,

*ends justify the means, rather. I get 'em confused myself sometimes ;)

Not quite the same...

You can discuss and strive for any ends you wish, so long as the means do not step on others.

The difference is clearly a moral judgment. And a valuable tool to measure character.

Firewall Amendment

This point is near perfect for bringing forward discussions of our self-destructive willingness to participate in economies which enslave us, for the profits of few.

The money changers, credit, and debit continue to taunt us as targets. How will we unify as the proper majority We are (to continue our freedom and survival with economies of honest trade), and impose the Firewall Amendment (someone else's term, I like it very much).

in defense of the maligned species

Thank you for rising in defense of the maligned species. My bad.

Should we seek a more valid example for what humans are capable of doing with their own free will? In doing so, will we find a way to describe such without providing rational for more despots who seek limiting it?

If we succeed in this most important task, may we uncover the key to unlock our clear Catch 22.

Yes? No?