» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society
Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Custom Search
This is a topic from the Current Politics and Religious Topics forum on inthe00s.
Subject: 911 litigation
Written By: marthadtox3 on 10/02/04 at 7:13 am
The thot plickens....
..Stanley Hilton falls on a hand grenade for America
On June 3 2002, Stanley Hilton, a San Francisco attorney and former aide to Senator Bob Dole, filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court against George W. Bush and members of his administration, on behalf of 400 9/11 victim family members. The suit alleges that Bush and his administration knowingly allowed the attacks to take place for their own political gain. Hilton has been targetted with death threats, professional threats, and harrassment; his law office was broken into and his professional papers were stolen. After a year underground, he recently broke his silence in a radio interview with Andrew Jones.
Listen to a recording of the interview here.
U.S. Taxpayers, et al Vs. Bush, et al
On August 13, Hilton amended "U.S. Taxpayers, et al Vs. Bush, et al" to narrow the list of plantiffs down to the United States of America (the federal government), Bush, Cheney, Rice, Mueller, Tenet, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft. Here are the facts of the case as presented in the filing:
This is a taxpayer class action suit against high officials in the current Bush administration, for complicity in aiding and abetting and facilitating the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks as a contrived and stylized "New Pearl Harbor" and for doing so in order to launch unconstitutional aggressive war against the sovereign states of Afghanistan and Iraq, declare political opponents "enemy combatants," suspend the Constitution indefinitely, etc., all for sordid political ends which subvert the very system of laws and Constitution the defendants have sworn to uphold in their offices.
The suit alleges two theories, which are not mutually exclusive:
(1) LIHOP: that defendants Bush et al LET IT (911) HAPPEN ON PURPOSE, i.e., that they had received adequate warning from FBI agents, NSA intercepts, spy satellites and other sources, of imminent air attacks against the WTC by "Al Quaeda" but deliberately chose to look the other way and to allow these attacks to take place; and ...
..
.(2) that Bush et al actively participated in planning executing and orchestrating the 911 events in order to manufacture a contrived and stylized sensational event aimed at frightening the taxpayers and Congress into passing unconstitutional laws, the PATRIOT ACTS, and in authorizing Bush via resolution to wage an unjustified war of aggression against Iraq. The suit seeks to obtain damages against defendants, an injunction ordering them to reimburse the US treasury for moneys unconstitutionally finagled to prosecute an illegal aggressive war in Iraq, and other damages. Each of the plaintiffs is a victim in some significant way, of the Bush-911 phenomenon and aggressive war and costly perpetual occupation in Iraq.
The suit alleges that Bush, as President, violated the US Constitution by deliberately lying toâ€â€and defraudingâ€â€the US Congress into passing an "Enabling Act" resolution in October 2002, authorizing Bush to wage aggressive war on Iraq. The war is unconstitutional and an illegal drain on the US taxpayers’ funds in the treasury.
The suit alleges the Iraq war is unconstitutional and that declaratory and injunctive relief should be ordered. It is unconstitutional and illegal because the president violated the Separation of Powers provisions of the Constitution by deliberately lying to the Congress by falsely assuring them that Bush had evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, and that Iraq was involved in plotting and carrying out the 9/11/01 terrorists attacks on the World Trade center and Pentagon–attacks actually orchestrated by defendants.
The suit also alleges that the USA Patriot Acts I and II are unconstitutional and must be struck down as such, because they violate the fourth, fifth, ninth and first amendments to the US Constitution o by permitting the government to spy on Americans and violate their rights to privacy, and because the Patriot Acts, like the war in Iraq, were passed under false and fraudulent circumstances presented by defendants to the Congress
Subject: Re: 911 litigation
Written By: GWBush2004 on 10/02/04 at 7:58 am
The thot plickens....
..Stanley Hilton falls on a hand grenade for America
On June 3 2002, Stanley Hilton, a San Francisco attorney and former aide to Senator Bob Dole, filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court against George W. Bush and members of his administration, on behalf of 400 9/11 victim family members. The suit alleges that Bush and his administration knowingly allowed the attacks to take place for their own political gain. Hilton has been targetted with death threats, professional threats, and harrassment; his law office was broken into and his professional papers were stolen. After a year underground, he recently broke his silence in a radio interview with Andrew Jones.
Listen to a recording of the interview here.
U.S. Taxpayers, et al Vs. Bush, et al
On August 13, Hilton amended "U.S. Taxpayers, et al Vs. Bush, et al" to narrow the list of plantiffs down to the United States of America (the federal government), Bush, Cheney, Rice, Mueller, Tenet, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft. Here are the facts of the case as presented in the filing:
This is a taxpayer class action suit against high officials in the current Bush administration, for complicity in aiding and abetting and facilitating the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks as a contrived and stylized "New Pearl Harbor" and for doing so in order to launch unconstitutional aggressive war against the sovereign states of Afghanistan and Iraq, declare political opponents "enemy combatants," suspend the Constitution indefinitely, etc., all for sordid political ends which subvert the very system of laws and Constitution the defendants have sworn to uphold in their offices.
The suit alleges two theories, which are not mutually exclusive:
(1) LIHOP: that defendants Bush et al LET IT (911) HAPPEN ON PURPOSE, i.e., that they had received adequate warning from FBI agents, NSA intercepts, spy satellites and other sources, of imminent air attacks against the WTC by "Al Quaeda" but deliberately chose to look the other way and to allow these attacks to take place; and ...
..
.(2) that Bush et al actively participated in planning executing and orchestrating the 911 events in order to manufacture a contrived and stylized sensational event aimed at frightening the taxpayers and Congress into passing unconstitutional laws, the PATRIOT ACTS, and in authorizing Bush via resolution to wage an unjustified war of aggression against Iraq. The suit seeks to obtain damages against defendants, an injunction ordering them to reimburse the US treasury for moneys unconstitutionally finagled to prosecute an illegal aggressive war in Iraq, and other damages. Each of the plaintiffs is a victim in some significant way, of the Bush-911 phenomenon and aggressive war and costly perpetual occupation in Iraq.
The suit alleges that Bush, as President, violated the US Constitution by deliberately lying toâ€â€and defraudingâ€â€the US Congress into passing an "Enabling Act" resolution in October 2002, authorizing Bush to wage aggressive war on Iraq. The war is unconstitutional and an illegal drain on the US taxpayers’ funds in the treasury.
The suit alleges the Iraq war is unconstitutional and that declaratory and injunctive relief should be ordered. It is unconstitutional and illegal because the president violated the Separation of Powers provisions of the Constitution by deliberately lying to the Congress by falsely assuring them that Bush had evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, and that Iraq was involved in plotting and carrying out the 9/11/01 terrorists attacks on the World Trade center and Pentagon–attacks actually orchestrated by defendants.
The suit also alleges that the USA Patriot Acts I and II are unconstitutional and must be struck down as such, because they violate the fourth, fifth, ninth and first amendments to the US Constitution o by permitting the government to spy on Americans and violate their rights to privacy, and because the Patriot Acts, like the war in Iraq, were passed under false and fraudulent circumstances presented by defendants to the Congress
San Francisco? Need anyone say more about his political bias? There is still no evidence to point out President Bush had anything to do with 9/11, but the wacko-liberals (the only ones who believe this crap) will repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over again. Almost no normal liberals, moderates, or conservatives by into this BS.
The war on Afghanistan was illegal? Iraq was too? Iraq was legal in America, maybe not under the UN's rules, but then again SCREW THE UN.
Afghanistan could not have been illegal. We were attacked! Did you miss that? Not only that Afghanistan was the most supported war in U.S. history. A poll conducted a week after 9/11 found that exactly 90% of the American public supported the war in Afghanistan. That beat the record held by WWII, which after Pearl Harbor 87% of Americans then supported the war, according to Fox News.
--Overall you can't be to bright to believe this crap. But then again, you can't be to bright to spell ''the plot thickens'' incorrectly.
Subject: Re: 911 litigation
Written By: marthadtox3 on 10/02/04 at 8:16 am
thanks for the reply .. I posted this cos it is of interest to note the changing aspects of the general political/legal disourse on the subject ..not because I believe that the suit is based on fact..(.the thot plickens was a spoonersim.) I like most people have no real access to a really accurate and reliable source of information as to the facts of such a case.. and never will have.....
Subject: Re: 911 litigation
Written By: danootaandme on 10/02/04 at 8:18 am
San Francisco? Need anyone say more about his political bias? There is still no evidence to point out President Bush had anything to do with 9/11, but the wacko-liberals (the only ones who believe this crap) will repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over again. Almost no normal liberals, moderates, or conservatives by into this BS.
The war on Afghanistan was illegal? Iraq was too? Iraq was legal in America, maybe not under the UN's rules, but then again SCREW THE UN.
Afghanistan could not have been illegal. We were attacked! Did you miss that? Not only that Afghanistan was the most supported war in U.S. history. A poll conducted a week after 9/11 found that exactly 90% of the American public supported the war in Afghanistan. That beat the record held by WWII, which after Pearl Harbor 87% of Americans then supported the war, according to Fox News.
--Overall you can't be to bright to believe this crap. But then again, you can't be to bright to spell ''the plot thickens'' incorrectly.
What we have here are unsubstantiated accusations. Something you tend to rely quite heavily upon
GW., when it serves your own agenda. And "the thot plickens" is a Spoonerism. I got it. ;)
Subject: Re: 911 litigation
Written By: marthadtox3 on 10/02/04 at 8:51 am
Thanks for the reply .. the spoonersim was used deliberately to indicate a degree of scepticism on my part .. but ...as I say what do I know!?
There have been other legal actions based on 911 see for instance
Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Laden a/k/a Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, The
Republic of Iraq, Defendants.
No. 01 CIV. 10132(HB).
May 7, 2003.
As Amended May 16, 2003.
Estates of two victims of September 11 terrorist attacks brought action against various defendants, terrorist organization, and its leader. After actions were consolidated and Republic of Iraq and its leader were added as defendants, the District Court, Baer, J., held that: (1) attacks were "acts of international terrorism" within meaning of provision of Antiterrorism Act of 1991 permitting persons injured by such acts to recover treble damages; (2) addressing an issue of first impression, Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) provision prohibiting entry of default judgment against a foreign state unless the claimant establishes his claim by "evidence satisfactory to the court" required legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for plaintiff; (3) leader of Iraq could not be liable for attacks under Flatow Amendment to FSIA; (4) plaintiffs presented evidence "satisfactory to the court" that Iraq had provided material support to terrorist organization and its leader, as required for entry of default judgment under FSIA; and (5) awards of solatium damages under Flatow Amendment were appropriate.
Ordered accordingly.
This court found for the plaintiffs.. however a close inspection of the findings of fact in this case indicates in my view that in the light of information which has come to light since the date of this judgement it is very likley that some of those findings may well have inappropriate
but I am not an expert in this subject .. just an intererested member of the general public ..
it is a matter of public interest .. after all..
Subject: Re: 911 litigation
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 10/02/04 at 8:28 pm
San Francisco? Need anyone say more about his political bias? There is still no evidence to point out President Bush had anything to do with 9/11, but the wacko-liberals (the only ones who believe this crap) will repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over again. Almost no normal liberals, moderates, or conservatives by into this BS.
The war on Afghanistan was illegal? Iraq was too? Iraq was legal in America, maybe not under the UN's rules, but then again SCREW THE UN.
Afghanistan could not have been illegal. We were attacked! Did you miss that? Not only that Afghanistan was the most supported war in U.S. history. A poll conducted a week after 9/11 found that exactly 90% of the American public supported the war in Afghanistan. That beat the record held by WWII, which after Pearl Harbor 87% of Americans then supported the war, according to Fox News.
"...according to Fox News" raises a red flag for me. Faux News' entire agenda is to flatter a right-wing agenda.
Sure, "SCREW THE UN," joke's on us! Daddy Bush put together a coalition (no, I mean a real coalition) to help defray the costs of the first Gulf War. Now we're stuck over there paying almost the entire bill! The future of our children and grandchildren mortgaged for tax cuts for the rich and wars we can't win! Hooray for the Bush Administration!
::)
Subject: Re: 911 litigation
Written By: philbo on 10/03/04 at 4:52 am
--Overall you can't be to bright to believe this crap. But then again, you can't be to bright to spell ''the plot thickens'' incorrectly.
I must admit I got a large giggle out of this statement on several levels: if you're going to start accusing people of being stupid based on intentional spoonerisms, then you'd better make sure there ain't a single typo in any of your brainless anti-Kerry postings, because that would obviously remove all significance from them (well, it would if there were any significance, which so far there never has been, even from the ones which are honest (if there actually have been any of those at all))
I guess irony and spotting irony isn't a particularly strong point for you, either... but that's no surprise.
And for you to suggest that marthadtox of all people on this board "isn't bright" is one of the most laughable suggestions of the lot :D
Subject: Re: 911 litigation
Written By: McDonald on 10/03/04 at 4:01 pm
 Re: 911 litigation
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2004, 08:58:27 AM » Reply with quoteÂÂ
San Francisco? Need anyone say more about his political bias? There is still no evidence to point out President Bush had anything to do with 9/11, but the wacko-liberals (the only ones who believe this crap) will repeat it over and over and over and over and over and over again. Almost no normal liberals, moderates, or conservatives by into this BS.
The war on Afghanistan was illegal? Iraq was too? Iraq was legal in America, maybe not under the UN's rules, but then again SCREW THE UN.
Afghanistan could not have been illegal. We were attacked! Did you miss that? Not only that Afghanistan was the most supported war in U.S. history. A poll conducted a week after 9/11 found that exactly 90% of the American public supported the war in Afghanistan. That beat the record held by WWII, which after Pearl Harbor 87% of Americans then supported the war, according to Fox News.
--Overall you can't be to bright to believe this crap. But then again, you can't be to bright to spell ''the plot thickens'' incorrectly.
There are so many things wrong with this post. First of all, the San Francisco comment totally proves my point that you are a hypocrite, given the your attacks on me for generalising my own Texas community. Secondly, how can you insult someone for an intentional spelling error (a spoonerism) and then unintentionally misspell a word yourself in the very same sentence?
'To' is a preposition, you dunce!
'Too' was the adverb you should have used in order to modify your adjective correctly. And this is just an example from this one post of yours. There are loads of others.
For example, 'thier,' one of your personal favourites, is not a word.
So before you try to discount someone's post simply because of grammatical errors, you should probably consider perfecting your own grammar skills.
Subject: Re: 911 litigation
Written By: Don Carlos on 10/03/04 at 5:15 pm
Good God, why am I about to right this? Since I am not q very good typist, and not a great sp[eller (big fingers) I note lots of mistakes in my posts when I re-read them. Lets not debase our discusion to a grammer oran spelllling lesson (all errors were intentional - I think). On the other hand, sarcasm, spoonerisms, and satire are part of politics, and clearly GWB has a limited appreciation of all of them. And so the plot sickens (you get that easy 1 GWB?).
As to the real topic, this suit may be silly, but I have my doubts. Bush, Condi, Rummy, and the rest were warned as Clinton's people left office that Al Quida was a major threat, so they prepared to invade - Mexico? - no, in this case it was Iraq, a secular, socialist state with absolutely nothing in common with the Islamic fundamentalists of Al Quida.
I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that when commercial jets go majorly off course, the military jets scramble to see whats up - not on 9/11, and those planes were MAJORLY off course and not communicating. I understand that 9/11 survivour groups have been asking these questions as well.
I personally doubt that Lil' Georgie had advance warning of the attacks - his stupid stair and 11 minutes of inaction in Florida attest to his surprise, but I sincerely doubt that he and his folks did all they could to prevent the attack.
In any case, Lil' Georgie and his handlers certainly capitalized on 9/11 to pursue the agenda they had already determined upon, the war with Iraq. And now we have to clean up their mess - with how many more US military and Iraqis dead?
Subject: Re: 911 litigation
Written By: philbo on 10/04/04 at 4:10 am
And so the plot sickens
Many a true word spoken in jest: it surely does... I'm in the middle of an election parody at the moment: do you mind if I try and work that one in?
Subject: Re: 911 litigation
Written By: danootaandme on 10/04/04 at 5:30 am
Knowing something of the bushes, and the people they serve(and I do not mean the citizens of the US),
it is a story that my cynical side embraces as a given. I am trying(very hard) to give them the benefit
of a doubt and my fair and balanced side if refraining form verbalizing this belief.
Subject: Re: 911 litigation
Written By: marthadtox2 on 10/04/04 at 11:23 am
It seems to me that the less startling these charges has been around and written about by many commetatorss .. but the more extreme came as a shock even to an old cynic like me... ! although a few years ago when did some research into the insider dealing that took place on a massive scale just befoe the event it did seem that something very odd was happening.....
we certainly live in interesting times....
Subject: Re: 911 litigation
Written By: Don Carlos on 10/04/04 at 1:23 pm
Many a true word spoken in jest: it surely does... I'm in the middle of an election parody at the moment: do you mind if I try and work that one in?
By all means. ;D I don't take creadit for it.
Subject: Re: 911 litigation
Written By: Don Carlos on 10/04/04 at 1:26 pm
we certainly live in interesting times....
The times, as Thomas Paine put it "that try men's souls" and women's as well.
Subject: Re: 911 litigation
Written By: marthadtox3 on 10/06/04 at 6:59 pm
So why has Donald R chnaged his tune at the CFR?????
Whta has happened to the evidence apparently offerred and accepted in this 911 law suit...
262 F.Supp.2d 217
S.D.N.Y.,2003.
May 7, 2003. (Approx. 22 pages)
"
…. First, Director Woolsey described the existence of a highly secure military facility in Iraq where non-Iraqi fundamentalists (e.g., Egyptians and Saudis) are trained in airplane hijacking and other forms of terrorism. Through satellite imagery and the testimony of three Iraqi defectors, plaintiffs *230 demonstrated the existence of this facility, called Salman Pak, which has an airplane but no runway. The defectors also stated that these fundamentalists were taught methods of hijacking using utensils or short knives. Plaintiffs contend it is farfetched to believe that Iraqi agents trained fundamentalists in a top-secret facility for any purpose other than to promote terrorism.""
are the intelligence agencies engaged in internecine warfare or what.......????
Subject: Re: 911 litigation
Written By: marthadtox3 on 10/06/04 at 7:17 pm
certainly regime change in iraq isn't a novel idea....
PL 105-338 (HR 4655)
October 31, 1998
IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998
An Act to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled,
…It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime
Subject: Re: 911 litigation
Written By: danootaandme on 10/07/04 at 6:05 am
The times, as Thomas Paine put it "that try men's souls" and women's as well.
Another American who is too underappreciated. One of my heroes.
Subject: Re: 911 litigation
Written By: Don Carlos on 10/07/04 at 4:52 pm
certainly regime change in iraq isn't a novel idea....
PL 105-338 (HR 4655)
October 31, 1998
IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998
An Act to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled,
…It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime
Unfortunately, by this time it was to late. GHWBUSH had a chance to support anti-Saddam forces after the 1st war, and instead allowed them to be slaughtered. So the sins of the father come doiwn, in this case, to haunt not the sons, but all of us unto the seventh generation.