'Bush has gone but has left many questions about 'Western democracy.' Has George W exposed weakness and inconsistencies in our political system? In a democracy is it OK to torture a person provided the executive re-defines torture? Can a democracy decide it is OK to kidnap a person and transport them to another country where it is known they will be tortured? Is there a limit to what can be done in the 'National interest'?
That is the thrust of my original comments. I doubt if Bush will ever be charged with anything, but my point, and that of Horton as I understand it, is to use Bush as a case study to see what can be done to prevent future abuses of power.

The following from http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/01/now-is-ideal-time-to-prosecute-bush-and.html bears repeating in full:

(Preface: To those who believe that all 9/11 conspiracy claims are crazy, please listen to what intelligence officers, military leaders, legal experts, and others in the know (http://www.911summary.com) have to say. On the other hand, to those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job - so that talk of mere "negligence" is a cop-out, please read to the end before making up your mind about strategy. As David Ray Griffin has pointed out, nearly everyone who looks at the evidence regarding 9/11 with an open mind ends up being convinced that it was an inside job. Any prosecution related to 9/11 will force people to look at the evidence.)

Gangsters have been jailed for life based on convictions for tax fraud.

Investigations into small misdeeds often turn up evidence of major crimes.

And covering up the crime is itself a crime. Even if the prosecutor isn't sure how you did it, if he can prove you covered up the crime, destroyed evidence, committed perjury, etc., you'll end up in the big house.

So if government agencies are too spineless to prosecute for anything else, prosecuting those complicit in 9/11 for criminal negligence and/or cover-up is worthwhile.

Is there strong evidence of criminal negligence with regard to the 9/11 attacks?

Definitely (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/04/to-keep-america-safe-we-must-impeach.html).

Is there strong evidence for a cover-up and destruction of evidence?

Without doubt. See this (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-evidence-of-obstruction-of-justice.html) and this(http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/01/whitewash.html).

Now is the perfect time (http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/01/now-is-perfect-time-to-prosecute-bush.html) to prosecute criminal behavior.

9/11 is no exception.

If the only politically feasible way to do it is to start with a prosecution solely for criminal negligence or cover-up, then start there.

---

For the record, for those who aren't already aware, I have looked at the evidence and, like most who have, as David Ray Griffin pointed out, I am convinced that 9/11 was an inside job.

See also "9/11 Truth" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=76 http://911oz.com http://911blogger.com http://911truth.org http://ae911truth.org http://firefightersfor911truth.org http://pilotsfor911truth.org http://candobetter.org/911truth etc.

"nearly everyone who looks at the evidence regarding 9/11 with an open mind ends up being convinced that it was an inside job."

Rubbish. Anyone who believes it was an inside job is a wack job.

Why don't you stop thread crapping and go and get your nappy changed.

Ditch,

Do you know what President Bush was doing at the time that America was under attack on 11 September 2001?

If you don't already know, then why don't you look with your own eyes at on 11 September 2001 http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9UA1xcwRLM?

Of this, Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker said in his documentary "The Great Conspiracy" of 2004 :

At a Town Hall session in Orlando, Florida on December
the 4th, 2001, here’s the President’s own account of the early
morning of 9/11.

Jordan (a third grader): "How did you feel when you
heard about a terrorist attack?"

George Bush: "Well, thank you, Jordan (applause).
Well, Jordan you’re not going to believe where, what state
I was in, when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in
Florida. And my Chief of Staff Andy Card, well actually
I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that
works, ... and I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to
go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower – you know, the TV
was obviously on..."

BZ: The President tells us he sees, on an ordinary TV
set outside a school classroom, the first plane hit the World
Trade Center. He gives the oddly reinforcing detail that "the
TV was obviously on." He continues:

George Bush: "I used to fly myself and I said, well,
there’s one terrible pilot and I said it must have been a
horrible accident, but I was whisked off there and didn't
have much time to think about it."

Barrie Zwicker : "Didn't have time to think about it?" As if his being told,
"Time to meet the kids, Mr. President" stops all his
thought processes concerning the remarkable image of what
he told us he's just seen on an ordinary TV, on top of all his
knowledge of the unprecedented situation from earlier in the
morning. But anyway, could George Bush have seen, on
ordinary TV, the first plane hit the World Trade Center? No,
he could not have.

(tobecontinued)

This conspiracy theory is as old as. It's for the naive and gullible.

I've got a life to live. You just sit there and suck on your dummy daggett. You won't do yourself too much harm that way.

Don't worry Ditch - it's just daggett's current pathological obsession. Apparently the vast majority of intelligent and informed people who don't subscribe to his crackpot conspiracy theory are 'denialists'.

Join the club.