Replies

Yes it does. It brings into question if the Hatfill deal was a purposely created decoy. Was Hatfill even in on it?? Being a good soldier, shouldering the blame for the time being.

But now I don't think so. I have personally contacted his lawyers and told them of my time at ISU. I said....this is an Erle Stanley Gardner moment!! but they were reluctant to bring it up as the kind of litigation they were in was the wrong venue. Civil vs. criminal. Something like that.

It still does make one wonder. Untilllllllll that is, until this FBI agent gets on the stand and says that the higher ups in WASH. DC squashed one of the best chances they ever had to save the 3000 plus of our fellow countrymen.

What the *^%$^&* are they doing? The ones that squashed the Z. Moussoui info should be fired. Period.

I never thought Hatfill was involved; they were looking for a scapegoat... he might have been a decoy, but then who or what are they protecting? I don't want to think about that too much, I'm paranoid enough... :-)

I am not surprised at all with the Moussoui (sp?) situation; business as usual in the federal beauracracy. Note I don't necessarily blame the "higher ups"; the way the beauracracy is run, there are a thousand ways for them to go to jail because of our PC culture... they see hundreds of leads like this a week, and must ask themselves, "Do we feel strongly enough about this hunch to risk going to prison for violation of several executive orders/ sections of the USC or let it ride?" The answer is usually to let it ride. Executive orders and the U.S. Code are just end-runs around the Constitution IMO-- government power should be strictly limited to Constitutional powers, and the only way to change that should be through an amendment.