Join 3,497 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Rodriguez v Bush et al
October 25, 2004 1:46 AM   Subscribe

Someone finally gets around to lodging an attempt to prove to the standards of a court of law that Bush Knew about 9/11 in advance, among other evil deeds. Now what?
posted by aeschenkarnos (28 comments total)

 
My guess is, next move is defendants ask for summary dismissal, on the grounds that "we all know" it's a frivolous lawsuit, or words to that effect. Next they attempt to have the court declare itself to have no jurisdiction over the executive branch of government, which won't fly.

It's a long read, I've only skimmed about a quarter of it, and I don't have a well-formed opinion on it yet. As to the plaintiff, William Rodriguez was the last person out of the WTC, and saved some notable number of people including 15 personally. He's been banging a drum hard to have the 9/11 commission indict people for the last three years, and doesn't have a lot to lose personally if he loses his case.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 1:53 AM on October 25, 2004


"damn liberal"
posted by Keyser Soze at 2:43 AM on October 25, 2004


I'd kind of prefer people to focus on this.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 2:56 AM on October 25, 2004


pretty_g, it doesn't support Safari. what's in it?
posted by matteo at 3:09 AM on October 25, 2004


The complaint's "facts" section begins by claiming that the WTC buildings were destroyed in a "controlled demolition" as an "inside job." They clearly have a big burden to prove here...
posted by grouse at 3:21 AM on October 25, 2004


I was thinking the same thing - these big airplanes did fly into the buildings. No "controlled demolition" necessary.

He'd have been better off just including the Operation Ignore chapter from Al Franken's last book, which is pretty damning, and has the added bonus of not relying on a conspiracy theory.
posted by eustacescrubb at 3:38 AM on October 25, 2004


Yeah - the "controlled demolition" theory was supported by the top building demo expert in the US, in a statement within the first day or two of 9-11 - and within 24 hours, he was backpedalling in reverse so fast he was damn near made it to China.

Controlled demo or not, the question was rendered largely moot by the (perhaps overly hasty) destruction of the evidence.

Best to stick with commonly acknowledged facts like : Bush was warned about possible impending attacks but preferred to loaf about on vacation rather than taking action to counter the threat.

Matteo - it's a list a quick "viral" short movies. The first one on the list is "Pelting Anne Coulter with pies".
posted by troutfishing at 4:16 AM on October 25, 2004


AAAAAAAARGH
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:20 AM on October 25, 2004


matteo: that's Colin Powell on Feb 24 2001:

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours"

I was just saying I'd prefer to see something as open-and-shut as that going to courts than this rather... outlandish... business.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:22 AM on October 25, 2004


What I'm really interested in is who Bush pardons after he's booted from office. There's your next GoodDeeds(tm) Hitlist.

I bet he pardons himself pre-emptively.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:29 AM on October 25, 2004


I think it will be difficult to prove Bush knew anything...including his own phone number.
posted by nyxxxx at 4:40 AM on October 25, 2004


he was backpedalling in reverse so fast he was damn near made it to China.

If you backpedal in reverse, aren't you going to go forwards?

< /bernard>
posted by biffa at 5:11 AM on October 25, 2004


My guess is, next move is defendants ask for summary dismissal, on the grounds that "we all know" it's a frivolous lawsuit, or words to that effect.

Of course it's possible that the defense will move for a dismissal on the grounds of that very weak argument, but it seems more likely that they would employ a stronger one that is more likely to succeed. Also, it doesn't seem that this guy having survived the WTC attacks or how many people he saved in the process has any bearing on his level of authority over whether buildings were felled by demolition charges or by impact damage and fire reaching a temperature capable of melting vital supports.
posted by ed\26h at 5:17 AM on October 25, 2004


Ed\26h: Yes, quite right about his authority, but what stronger argument do you think that the defense would choose?

Having read a bit more of it, I'm unimpressed by how unfocussed the lawsuit is. Looks like it was drafted by a pretty inept (although articulate) lawyer, full of editorial opinion, repetition, and scattershot claim-making. Perhaps I'm wrong, but maybe plaintiff(s) would have been better off separating the claims down into clear, managable bits. Maybe ten sub-claims of about 20 pages each, each containing one core assertion and loads of proof of that assertion. It's way too broad in its scope.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:56 AM on October 25, 2004


Now what? Now nothing. Neocons control the three branches of our government and keep the fourth estate in check by intimidation and/our outright ownership. The guilty will never be brought to justice because justice is no longer a concern with this administration. Having an unelected candidate placed into the White House was only the beginning of this strange ride.
posted by fleener at 7:20 AM on October 25, 2004


What I'm really interested in is who Bush pardons after he's booted from office.

That is something that's been in the back of my head for a while now. I bet it'll make any previous pardons of any previous administrations look like child's play.

And what long-term effects the updates to the Presidential Records Act will have.
posted by ao4047 at 7:23 AM on October 25, 2004


Aeschenkarnos: I'd agree with your views on the document. Although I have no similar texts to compare it to and have only skimmed over about a third of it, it does seem to be, well, garbage quite frankly. Of course, irrespective of the document's quality or lack thereof, Bush et al could be absolutely guilty as charged, but its non-sequitur, unprofessional nature would be a far better reason for asking for the case to be dismissed.

Neocons control the three branches of our government and keep the fourth estate in check by intimidation and/our outright ownership. The guilty will never be brought to justice because justice is no longer a concern with this administration.

By saying that the "guilty will never be brought to justice", presumably you belive that the administration must be guilty of these charges. If this is so, can you tell me what has led you to this conclusion? While such a reply would be uncharacteristic, if you do decide to post it, can I ask that you employ more reason that you do rhetoric and build from premises which are more likely to be accepted than the unsupported conclusion itself?
posted by ed\26h at 7:52 AM on October 25, 2004


By saying that the "guilty will never be brought to justice", presumably you belive that the administration must be guilty of these charges.

Fleener, I'm interested in this too. You actually believe the Bush administration knew about the 9/11 attacks ahead of time? What is your proof? Your comments sounds like they came from a soundbyte generator.

Also not sure what you mean by, "Neocons control the three branches of our government". In no way are the branches "controlled" by neo-conservatives or even necessarily by paleoconservatives. I'm starting to think you don't know what a neo-conservative is. Can you support your, uh, assertions?
posted by dhoyt at 8:20 AM on October 25, 2004


Maybe ten sub-claims of about 20 pages each

Maybe if Americans decided to impeach this almost-president for everything he's done and has been accused of having done, you'll have a case that surpasses the Bible's page count. If nothing else, it could make to the Guiness Book of Records!
posted by acrobat at 8:21 AM on October 25, 2004


I, for one, am glad we will finally get to the bottom of this.
posted by lathrop at 8:24 AM on October 25, 2004


he was backpedalling in reverse so fast he was damn near made it to China.

If you backpedal in reverse, aren't you going to go forwards?


Perhaps, but it would be about the same distance to China either way [ducks].

I'm not a lawyer and I couldn't take the time to read very much of this document, but it did seem way over the top.

I'd like to see a credible complaint lodged. It's kind of a Al Capone situation - Bush may be guilty of horrendous things, but it's not likely that we can prove it. So, let's get him on relatively minor things. The point is to make him and his administration account for what they've done, and remove them from positions where they can do harm.
posted by orange swan at 8:26 AM on October 25, 2004


Maybe if Americans decided to impeach this almost-president for everything he's done and has been accused of having done, you'll have a case that surpasses the Bible's page count. If nothing else, it could make to the Guiness Book of Records!

To be honest, if you did this with only the things that metafilter members have accused him of you could probably take that record.
posted by ed\26h at 8:40 AM on October 25, 2004


AAAAAAAARGH

Now, that's just plain sick!

But I loved that line, "What I saw was what I wanted to see..."
posted by 327.ca at 8:43 AM on October 25, 2004


100 Facts and 1 Opinion: The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration
posted by muckster at 9:00 AM on October 25, 2004


Eyes reveal secrets of the heart.
posted by NewBornHippy at 10:03 AM on October 25, 2004


Has anyone, in any branch of the government, been fired/dismissed/"retired" because of the 9/11 attacks?
posted by grum@work at 10:36 AM on October 25, 2004


Well, George Tenet resigned to "spend more time with his family," but Bush said "He's done a superb job on behalf of the American people."
posted by kirkaracha at 12:29 PM on October 25, 2004


100 Facts and 1 Opinion: The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration

Perhaps the “one opinion” is that the case is non-arguable. But on a more serious note, I’m not quite sure what that means.
posted by ed\26h at 2:02 AM on October 26, 2004


« Older Freespeeches.net is the future of television....  |  The greatest children's toy in... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments