by JONATHAN SCHELL [from the January 9, 2006 issue]

When the /New York Times/ revealed that George W. Bush had ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap the foreign calls of American citizens without seeking court permission, as is indisputably required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress in 1978, he faced a decision. Would he deny the practice, or would he admit it? He admitted it. But instead of expressing regret, he took full ownership of the deed, stating that his order had been entirely justified, that he had in fact renewed it thirty times, that he would continue to renew it and--going even more boldly on the offensive--that those who had made his law-breaking known had committed a "shameful act." As justification, he offered two arguments, one derisory, the other deeply alarming. The derisory one was that Congress, by authorizing him to use force after September 11, had authorized him to suspend FISA, although that law is unmentioned in the resolution. Thus has Bush informed the members of a supposedly co-equal branch of government of what, unbeknownst to themselves, they were thinking when they cast their vote. The alarming argument is that as Commander in Chief he possesses "inherent" authority to suspend laws in wartime. But if he can suspend FISA at his whim and in secret, then what law can he not suspend? What need is there, for example, to pass or not pass the Patriot Act if any or all of its provisions can be secretly exceeded by the President?

Bush's choice marks a watershed in the evolution of his Administration. Previously when it was caught engaging in disgraceful, illegal or merely mistaken or incompetent behavior, he would simply deny it. "We have found the weapons of mass destruction!" "We do not torture!" However, further developments in the torture matter revealed a shift. Even as he denied the existence of torture, he and his officials began to defend his right to order it. His Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, refused at his confirmation hearings to state that the torture called waterboarding, in which someone is brought to the edge of drowning, was prohibited. Then when Senator John McCain sponsored a bill prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, Bush threatened to veto the legislation to which it was attached. It was only in the face of majority votes in both houses against such treatment that he retreated from his claim.

But in the wiretapping matter, he has so far exhibited no such vacillation. Secret law-breaking has been supplanted by brazen law-breaking. The difference is critical. If abuses of power are kept secret, there is still the possibility that, when exposed, they will be stopped. But if they are exposed and still permitted to continue, then every remedy has failed, and the abuse is permanently ratified. In this case, what will be ratified is a presidency that has risen above the law.

The danger is not abstract or merely symbolic. Bush's abuses of presidential power are the most extensive in American history. He has launched an aggressive war ("war of choice," in today's euphemism) on false grounds. He has presided over a system of torture and sought to legitimize it by specious definitions of the word. He has asserted a wholesale right to lock up American citizens and others indefinitely without any legal showing or the right to see a lawyer or anyone else. He has kidnapped people in foreign countries and sent them to other countries, where they were tortured. In rationalizing these and other acts, his officials have laid claim to the unlimited, uncheckable and unreviewable powers he has asserted in the wiretapping case. He has tried to drop a thick shroud of secrecy over these and other actions.

There is a name for a system of government that wages aggressive war, deceives its citizens, violates their rights, abuses power and breaks the law, rejects judicial and legislative checks on itself, claims power without limit, tortures prisoners and acts in secret. It is dictatorship.

The Administration of George W. Bush is not a dictatorship, but it does manifest the characteristics of one in embryonic form. Until recently, these were developing and growing in the twilight world of secrecy. Even within the executive branch itself, Bush seemed to govern outside the normally constituted channels of the Cabinet and to rely on what Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff has called a "cabal." Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill reported the same thing. Cabinet meetings were for show. Real decisions were made elsewhere, out of sight. Another White House official, John DiIulio, has commented that there was "a complete lack of a policy apparatus" in the White House. "What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm." As in many Communist states, a highly centralized party, in this case the Republican Party, was beginning to forge a parallel apparatus at the heart of government, a semi-hidden state-within-a-state, by which the real decisions were made.

With Bush's defense of his wiretapping, the hidden state has stepped into the open. The deeper challenge Bush has thrown down, therefore, is whether the country wants to embrace the new form of government he is creating by executive fiat or to continue with the old constitutional form. He is now in effect saying, "Yes, I am above the law--I /am/ the law, which is nothing more than what I and my hired lawyers say it is--and if you don't like it, I dare you to do something about it."

Members of Congress have no choice but to accept the challenge. They did so once before, when Richard Nixon, who said, "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal," posed a similar threat to the Constitution. The only possible answer is to inform Bush forthwith that if he continues in his defiance, he will be impeached.

If Congress accepts his usurpation of its legislative power, they will be no Congress and might as well stop meeting. Either the President must uphold the laws of the United States, which are Congress's laws, or he must leave office.

*ROBERT STEINBACK*

*rsteinback@MiamiHerald.com *

*O*ne wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.

If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had /known /there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.

If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.

If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.

That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.

What is there to say now?

All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised attack on Christianity.

I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.

Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''

President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.

Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?''

Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the ''war on terror'' -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fighting infection -- even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it will strike again.

Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law /forever?/ It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?

Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.

Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?

Evidence of Bush/New World Order 9-11 Plot
Rebel Forces E.U.A. | 20.05.2002 00:55
Critical Digest: Pass to Mainstream!
"U.S. GOVERNMENT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF EMERGENCY"
by Sherman H. Skolnick

AMERICA'S REICHSTAG FIRE

The most massive so-called "terrorist" attacks on U.S. soil since the Oklahoma City bombings of 1995, were known, a week ahead of time, by the American CIA. Among the foreign intelligence agencies who penetrated the plots were the French CIA and Israel's The Mossad, units of both often working with one another.

Foreign intelligence sources confirm the validity of this story. And they state that they informed the U.S. secret police who absolutely failed, neglected, and outright refused to take action as to known prior specifics of which the top-level of the CIA were informed in advance.

As made known to the CIA, were the following, among other details

[1] That George Herbert Walker Bush, as President, at the close of the Persian Gulf War, 1991, arranged to bring into the U.S. some four thousand Iraqi military officers, some from intelligence units, and their families.

[2] Some 550 of these officers became residents in Lincoln, Nebraska, AND TWO THOUSAND OF THEM took up residence in Oklahoma City. In a watered down story, CBS' "60 Minutes" Program did a segment once on this about Lincoln, Nebraska but said NOTHING about the Iraqi military officers in Oklahoma City.

[3] The financial and other provisions for them and their families were arranged by the Elder Bush, and then quietly continued by Bill Clinton as President, and perpetuated by George W. Bush as White House "resident" and "occupant". The arrangements included financial subsidies, housing, and employment for the Iraqi officers.

[A brave Oklahoma City TV Reporter, Jayna Davis, on their local TV station, put on the air several stories about the Iraqi connection to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building, the bombing done with the aid of domestic dissidents as surrogates. A group bought out the TV station and silenced her. Timothy McVeigh's chief defense counsel for the murder trial, Stephen Jones, on behalf of McVeigh, filed an extra-ordinary petition in the next higher court, just prior to the murder trial. To no avail, Jones tried to force Denver U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch to compel the American CIA to disgorge records held by them showing prior U.S. knowledge of the bombing, as confirmed by other known records, some of them also in secret court records. We have a copy of the 185 page U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, petition filed by Jones and almost uniformly ignored by the American monopoly press. The petition raises the Iraqi connection.]

[4] The foreign intelligence agencies informed the American CIA that guns would be planted on-board as many as ten U.S. commercial airflights. This to be done by airplane clean-up crew members who are generally not subject to airport security provisions. These workers most likely did not know the purpose of the gun-planting.

[5] The CIA also was informed prior to the "terrorist" attacks scheduled for "911" Emergency Day [September 11], that highly skilled Iraqi pilots, among the four thousand Iraqi officers resident in the U.S., would take over the commercial flights, by retrieving the weapons concealed onboard, and then commandeering the flight deck.

[6] The Elder Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush, all were in a position to know that the Iraqi officers that they provided for included some double-agents. The FBI Counter-Intelligence Division at no time was instructed to do anything about these double-agents in a position to commit mischief, murder, and mayhem, on U.S. soil.

[7] As I revealed a week prior to the "terrorist" attacks, some foreign television networks were busy preparing lengthy documentaries that would scandalize George W. Bush and other members of the Bush Family, including the Elder Bush and Jeb Bush. The subject matter included how forty million dollars in dope funds were used by the Bush Family to reportedly corrupt South Florida DEMOCRATS to abandon the recount even ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling installing George W. Bush as the "resident" and "occupant" of the White House. The dope funds came reportedly from Bush Family business partner, Carlos Lehder, co-founder of the U.S./Colombia medellin dope cartel. [Visit our website story, "Chandra Levy Affair, Part Two".] I discussed this on radio talk shows.

[8] As part of the targetting of the World Trade Center buildings, a group of surrogates for the Iraqi military officers, reportedly spent considerable time within one of the buildings, with building security officers somehow oblivious of their presence.

[9] As the CIA top officials were informed and had prior knowledge, the purpose of the "terrorist" attacks was to effectively paralyze the financial infrastructure of the U.S. Some of the most important stock and bond houses in the world, with their key people having loads of inside knowledge and hard to replace trading tricks and expertise, were located in the known-to-be-targetted twin towers of the World Trade Center, New York City. It was like blowing up the main "financial factory" and destroying their inventory. The so-called "back-up" records kept parked across the river in New Jersey, are not only inadequate but cannot help reconstruct various accounts and transactions in the works.

Financial experts tell us the "back up" records parked in New Jersey, may NOT be sufficient to re-start the American financial apparatus. Some of the experts are loudly grumbling that they should have early on seen Federal Reserve Czar Alan Greenspan on the television explaining about the financial ramifications. Of course, some suppose that Americans would panic and run out of control. So we are dealt with like little children.

[10] It is a serious mistake, according to savvy American and foreign intelligence sources, to blame the Emergency all on Osama bin Laden. As readers of our website are aware, we have long pointed out that bin Laden is reportedly in the Mid-East Construction business. His reputed partners? The family of Sharon PERCY Rockefeller. She is the wife of John D. Rockefeller 4th (D., W.Va.), great grandson of the founder of the infamous Standard Oil Trust that used to bomb their own obsolete buildings to falsely blame onto their competitors. Bin Laden's so-called "secret" accounts, which the White House has said they would like to freeze, are or have been actually reportedly in the Harris Bank, Chicago, joint accounts with the family of Sharon PERCY Rockefeller.

[11] The Saudi Royal Family actually consists of some five thousand members, some of whom actually are for the U.S. and some anti-U.S. Some of them have bankrolled Iraq's war against Iran, 1980 to 1988, to destroy some oil facilities and keep the price of oil HIGH. The foreign intelligence agencies, that penetrated the plots to be carried out on U.S. soil, are aware that some of the Saudi royals are actually sympathetic to the Iraqis destroying the World Trade Center Buildings and in part, wrecking the Pentagon. [As if the American CIA did not ALREADY have their own knowledge of this.]

Whenever there is a political assassination or some other unusual violent event, what is the key question the oil-soaked, spy-riddled monopoly press ALWAYS fails to ask? WHO BENEFITS. With a scandal about to break against George W. Bush, he and his circle had an interest NOT to stop these things from happening. And to divert attention. The White House has a strong motive to silence critics and urge people TO RALLY AROUND THE PRESIDENT. Simple-minded folks, of course, often poorly informed,do not understand how the ruling classes would shed the blood of thousands if not millions of innocent people, in some instigated war, to avoid dealing with the apparent on-coming economic disasters.

In the midst of this prior-knowledge emergency, who dares now to point to the Bush Family as reputed business partners of the major kingpin, Carlos Lehder, of the U.S./Colombia medellin dope cartel? Or how huge dope money bought the Electoral College trick in Florida and corrupted the U.S. Supreme Court's "gang of five".

This is America's REICHSTAG fire. Adolph Hitler burned down the German parliament and falsely blamed his enemies and had them rounded up and put in the concentration camps. Has the U.S. Constitution now been revoked?

Be Afraid: The New World

Order's Fascist Pedigree

By Henry Makow, Ph.D.

The 57-cent stamp shows an eagle, which according to Al Martin is an exact copy of the symbol of the Nazi Waffin-SS. The USPS introduced it in February 2001 as the innocuous sounding "art deco" eagle but in light of Sept. 11, its symbolism is ominous. Martin says this Nazi design will also be used for the triangular arm badges and hats given to participants in the new Neighborhood Watch program. A commercial with Ed McMahon, the new Department of Justice spokesman, suggests that you cooperate with the Neighborhood Watch Association. You will be told how to spot "suspicious" characters or even people you know well, who are suddenly acting "out of character." Similarly, John Ashcroft christened another homeland security force the "Freedom Corps", evoking the "Freicorps," the German army's "irregulars" that cleared the way for Hitler by murdering social democrats and communists.

These allusions are sinister because the Third Reich was an early attempt at a "New World Order," and the Anglo American business elite was involved with that up to its ears. Are these fascist allusions coincidental? Or, is the elite coming out of the closet? Economist Robert Brady defined the Nazi state as "a dictatorship of monopoly capitalism. Its 'fascism' is that of business enterprise organized on a monopoly basis, and in full command of all the military, police, legal and propaganda power of the state." (Richard Sasuly, "I.G. Farben," 1947, p. 128) Nazi Germany was a capitalist paradise. There was a 60-hour workweek, low wages and no unions. Nazi expansionism represented the global ambitions of German cartels that started preparing for war long before they financed Hitler. As countries fell under the Nazi jackboot, they absorbed former competitors at fire sale prices. "For German big business, World War II was a chance to plunder on a scale without precedent in history," writes Sasuly (p.114).

The key to understanding the elite, and the direction of world events, is to understand the psychology of the cartel. Cartels by definition are a conspiracy. Their purpose is to defraud the public by keeping prices high. They do this by controlling competition, markets, raw materials and new technology. They are by definition meglo maniacal, anti-national, and anti social. One of the earliest cartels was J. D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, which eliminated the competition by secretly fixing transportation costs with the railroads. While he professed Christianity, Rockefeller is famous for saying the only sin is competition. The largest German cartel was the chemical, film and pharmaceutical giant I.G. Farben. Farben produced 85% of Germany's explosives in World War Two. In 1926, Farben and Standard Oil entered into a cartel agreement in which Farben stayed out of synthetic oil in return for Standard representing Farben in the US. The upshot of this agreement was that Standard Oil supplied the Nazis with petroleum in spite of shortages in the US. It supplied a rare lead additive without which the Luftwaffe could not fly. It suppressed the production of synthetic rubber in the US, which almost cost the Allies the war. In turn, Rockefeller got a cut of Farben's other business, which included the many factories that employed slave labor from concentration camps like Auschwitz. (Farben-Rockefeller paid the SS for this labor at bargain rates.) Profits also derived from the poison gas that killed the laborers after their usefulness was expended. This is the real reason the rail lines to Auschwitz were not bombed. Allied bombers hit within 14 miles of Auschwitz but the factories and death camp were off limits. In fact, German industry moved there for this reason. After the war, the CIA established its German headquarters in the undamaged Farben skyscraper in Frankfurt. The holocaust was very good business. Throughout the 1930's Wall Street investment banks participated in "aryanization" which meant getting Jewish owned breweries, banks, factories, department stores etc. for 30% of their true value. The gold from the teeth of holocaust victims ended up in their vaults. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Nazi war effort was financed by the Bank of England (which, for example, transferred the Czech gold reserves to the Nazis), Wall Street (Prescott Bush, W's grandfather was one of the leading Nazi financiers) and Jewish plunder. It was finessed by lawyer John Foster Dulles, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, who later became US Secretary of State.

After the war, Dillon Read banker General William Draper was put in charge of dismantling German industry and distributing it among the allies. Needless to say, this did not happen. His Wall Street cohorts owned too much of it. Nazis businessmen remained in positions of power, war criminals were transported to South America, or went to work for the CIA. In contrast, during the war, the allies deliberately prevented Jews from escaping from Europe. If someone sets a house on fire, and someone else blocks the exits, don't they share equal blame? On the first day of World War Two, His Majesty's ship "Lorna" fired on the limping overcrowded "Tiger Hill" as she approached Palestine with 1417 Jewish refugees. The first people killed by the British in WWII were not Germans but Jewish escapees from Germany. Other refugee ships (e.g. the "St. Louis") were sent back to Germany by the US or blown up with all souls on board by British MI-6 (the "Struma"). For the whole story, read The Holocaust Conspiracy (1989) by William R. Perl, a Lt. Colonel with the US Army Intelligence Service. The list of US corporations that had the equivalent of $8 billion invested in Nazi Germany include Standard Oil, General Motors, IBM, Ford, the Chase and National City Banks, ITT and many others. As a result, the men of "We Were Soldiers" didn't know that ITT built the airplanes that dropped bombs on them. They didn't know that Ford and General Motors built the Nazi's trucks and tanks. They didn't know that ball bearings crucial to the Nazi war effort were manufactured in Philadelphia, yet were in short supply in the USA. This was all done with the knowledge and permission of the US government. For details, I recommend Charles Higham's Trading with the Enemy (1983). Christopher Simpson's The Splendid Blond Beast (1993) and Blowback (1988) are also useful.

This information is shocking if we assume that cartels owe an allegiance to their native country. This is not so. They live in a financial virtual reality, a spiritual limbo divorced from common sympathy with their fellow man. Their native countries are important only insofar as they provide patriots to die for the advancement of their financial interests. If the elite backed the Nazis, why didn't the Nazis win? The elite also backed the Allies. It doesn't matter which version of NW0 the elite gets. The real money is in war and genocide itself. In addition, war degrades and demoralizes humanity so it will accept serfdom.

In conclusion, the Third Reich was an early attempt at the New World Order. The purpose of this kind of "globalization" is to institutionalize the political power of the cartels. This is the hidden agenda behind the current "war on terror," hence the fascist symbols and measures. Most of our nation's leaders are hod carriers for the cartels, particularly oil. They are careerists who serve a class of people who have spiritually seceded from the human race. This class holds us in bondage while it amasses wealth that affords it neither peace nor joy. I leave you with a famous quotation by US President Theodore Roosevelt. Uttered in 1906, it is relevant today because as long as cartels rule, the human race is stalled. "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today."

.

.

New World Order Plot to Overthrow the USA

Sept 11- Bush and Cheney were involved !

COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT THE SEPTEMBER 11 TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE USA WERE ORGANIZED, AT LEAST IN PART, BY USA AUTHORITIES, AS AN EXCUSE TO START AN ALREADY PLANNED WAR IN SOUTH ASIA, AND AS AN EXCUSE TO BEGIN THE BIGGEST ATTACK ON CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE WEST SINCE THE FACIST ERA.

THIS EVIDENCE COMES IN 4 PARTS. PART 1 DEALS WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE PLAN TO ATTACK AFGHANISTAN WAS ALREADY IN PLACE WELL BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11.

PART 2 DEALS WITH A DETAILED LOOK AT THE EVENTS OF THE MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 11, DEMONSTRATING THAT USA AUTHORITIES AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL DELIBERATELY ALLOWED THE ATTACKS TO TAKE PLACE. PART 3 DETAILS A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BUSH FAMILY, THE BINLADEN FAMILY AND THE CIA. PART 4 DEALS WITH MISCELLANEOUS INCONSTISTANCIES IN THE OFFICIAL STORIES, AND MISCELLANEOUS SUSPICIOUS EVENTS.

PART 1
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani diplomat has said that senior US officials told him in mid July, that they planned to attack Afghanistan by mid October, at the latest, before the winter snow set in. ( BBC report by by George Arney Sept 18, 2001). ( )
People with military experience, and my own research into the timeline of previous, comparable military campaigns suggest that it would simply not be possible to organize a military operation on the scale of that launched by the USA against Afghanistan, in the space of 25 days, which was the time between September 11, and the beginning of the attack on Afghanistan. It doesn?t matter how angry the USA might have been, it?s just not logistically possible. There are those who have suggested that the USA is always ready to attack anybody at any time. This simply isn?t possible, even for a country with the powerful resources of the USA. As a comparison, the time taken for the USA to be ready to attack Iraq in 1991, was 4 1/2 months. The attack was not delayed by attempts to find a negotiated settlement. Negotiations took place during the time that the USA was preparing for its attack. The attack took place as soon as they were militarily capable of doing so.
And if it is to be suggested that the US military really is so astonishingly razor sharp, that it is able to organize an operation like this in 25 days, then this is wildy inconsistent with their unbelievable lack of readiness on the morning of September 11. This will be discussed in part 2, and cross referenced back to the point that I have just been making.
Thirdly, it is preposterous to suggest that the USA can have identified the culprit behind the September 11 attacks within the time, that they claim to have. While it?s reasonable that a list of suspects would immediately spring to mind, it is another matter to be so certain of someone?s guilt that you are prepared to attack another country on the basis of that suspicion. It is instructive to review the timeline of the "investigation" into September 11. Within a few hours, Bin Laden was already being named as the main suspect. Within 12 hours, it was being claimed that they were "almost certain" of Bin Laden?s guilt. Within a few days, they were proclaiming his guilt as 100% certain, using the expression, "his fingerprints everywhere", and were already threatening to attack Afghanistan. This is clearly ridiculous. It?s not even enough time to set up a committee to discuss the personnal and logistics of the investigation.