Not one of these lawyers I hope. http://democracyfrontline.org/blog/?p=1132

I have a sneaking suspicion some of the commentarial have a lot in common just by reading the first few words in their writings: Something to do with the Marxoid theory of Sub text-ing or some crap. You know how they carry on about existentialist theorist junk archetypical of a wombat with concussion after falling out of a tree.
If it was Jihad Jackie, would we expect the Useless Idiot feminists to speak up?
Here is a good compilation of articles whilst on the subject of Useless Idiots: And the Archetypical wombats, Take note, you are on notice from here on; http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/127/
Simile.

Logic, we did have adequate laws to handle almost any situation. Any law allowing forced or threatened evidence, should not be applicable nor tolerated. What's obvious is we are quickly having our freedom of dissent removed. Along with lots of people, I don't support any form of terrorism, civil disruption, authoritarianism, nor right or left wing pandering. But we do need the right to express our non ideological dissent at the way our country is run, not other countries.

What's glaringly obvious, is all those charged with terrorism in this country have so far walked free, and quite rightly so. When you have laws implying intent with no fact, other than forced or implied intent, you have unfair laws. You can have preventative laws, but you must be able to support their application with fact, not supposition or implied or imagined intent

Everyone should have the right to express dissent, but not at the expense of peace and harmony. The best way to demonstrate your intent, is by example, not by implied or deceptive supposition.

Laws should be explicate, not filled with moral or ideological moral supposition. You can't have laws denying capital punishment, then go to war in another country. We are either a defensive non ideological country, or a warmonger with ideological elitist intent.

The former offers us equality and peace, the later, continuing devastation.

Perhaps we should all take a leisurely stroll back to where this all began - New York City, 11th September, 2001.

To this day, there is NO substantive evidence that the official narrative is true. There is NO warrant for Bin Laden in connection with that atrocity - the FBI have no evidence. The planes were never forensically identified. Cheney never had to explain his actions on that day. There is NO explanation for the demolition of WTC building 7. The profiteers are protected by commercial-in-confidence. They just got off - scot free.

Yet this tissue thin myth is offered as the causus belli for the subsequent resource wars, the utterly bogus War on Terr'r and the war on civil rights (the US Constitution is being shredded before our eyes).

It's a nice little earner for those of us willing to "go along to get along", made all the more odious by aspirational people who claim to be members of the "law" fraternity. Does the name Quisling ring a bell?

There are many little stories like that of Jihad Jack's - all designed to keep us away from the real narrative. Whatever you do, don't ask, "Who gains?" Just keep your nose to the TV - there will be a thousand more Jacks to baffle you.

Who knows, the next Jack might be you - or me

I may be wrong, but I thought Bin Laden claimed credit for 9/11
( & a host of other terrorist acts).

OK Chris, Qui bono?
Please tell us?

Yes, bin Laden did eventually claim credit for the WTC attacks. While it's unlikely he'll ever be brought to trial, I suspect that if the law was followed to the letter he'd be acquitted anyway. To date there is no proof of his involvement so Chris Shaw has a point.

Most people are now aware of the patina of lies and distortions enveloping the entire US rationale for their bumbling Iraq adventure. The tragedy now is that governments of many coutries lie to the people as a matter of course.

9-11 Part 1

Osama Bin Laden (Tim Osman to his CIA handlers) seems to have left a litter of blurry clues. Here's the first one that I read back then (Sept 28, 2001):

“I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of battle.

The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology can survive. They may be anyone, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups capable of causing large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who have been annoyed with President Bush ever since the Florida elections and who want to avenge him. ... Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from Congress and the government every year. ... They needed an enemy. ... Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked who carried out the attacks.”

[Daily Ummat (Karachi), 9/28/2001]

I dunno about you, but I am inclined to think that the local rag might be a better source of info than say, a missive found under a piece of goat's cheese in a shepherd's hut - your classic OBL correspondence.

*