It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If The Official Story Is True, Why Hasn't Gov't Sued?

page: 4
70
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Why hasn't the government sued?

Probably the same reason that the government hasn't sued anyone over the Roswell incident, the Kennedy assassination, the Moon Landing hoax, etc.

First, to acknowledge a viewpoint (no matter how nutty) lends credibility to it. What is that old saying about being known by the greatness of your enemies?

Second, the government does not want to call attention to these conspiracy theories, because they tend to grow in proportion to the amount of press time given to them.

Third, maybe the government bureaucrats don't believe that the conspiracy view points merit a response?

Just a thought.




posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
The people are allowed to criticize and question the government without penalty. The government cannot sue for slander or libel, ever.

What you're referring to is something like the Alien and Sedition Act, which of course was ruled unconstitutional.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Then, of course, you'll have to ask why no world leaders or government officials have sued David Icke for slander and libel!

Yes, I definitely agree with the OP; why hasn't the US Gov't said much more than "that's absurd," paid some guy on Red Eye to attack personalities and give moronic insults, and "it was terrorists... trust us."



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


If the government did attempt to press charges or file suit I'm guessing that would only catalyze the producers of said videos to cry that the Government had come to take them away to hide the evidence and strip them of their rights once and for all. Whether or not the Government had a hand in 911 (I doubt we'll ever be sure, just like with Kennedy) if they did file suit they'd have every defender of the first amendment up in arms (rightfully so). Besides, most of the videos blame Bush don't they? He's out of office now, its too late for them to make a big deal out of it. I'd say the fact they haven't tried any overt moves against the "truth" movement is because they're too smart for that sort of thing. Either that or the elements within the government that may have had a hand in 911 are part of a compartmentalized Conspiracy, the shadow government was involved, but only those who needed to be in the loop were allowed to know about 911 before hand....

The fact is that the United States Government would only further injure its own reputation with the people of this country if it did press suit, and at this delicate stage, with the Global meltdown of the economy and states declaring sovereignty, they just can't afford to do it.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't the government try to covertly smear the truth movement by mentioning Conspiracy Theory websites about 911 as possible home-grown terror threats? I seem to remember seeing a video about it a while back... And who knows, maybe the govt is responsible for all the crazy no-plane, hologram, mini-nuke, UFO, theories about 911 that discredit the "truth" movement and hinder any legitimate inquiry about what really happened that fateful day...

[edit on 18-2-2009 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 
Exactly,it's a lot easier just to launch a smear campaign against the truth movement then it is to file a suit for defamation and deal with all the attention that a major court case gets.Besides if any of those lawsuits ever went forward Bush and Cheney would be on their private jets heading to Venezuela and Dubai if they were called to testify.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Waahaahaa.

No one will answer my point though! If I buy a DVD sold to me as a documentary film, claiming to have facts about an event, then I should reasonably expect that these facts are true and accurate. Heck, I gave you guys the definition of a documentary film according to Princeton.

So I am stating right here right now, that I believe all these documentaries are frauds, because they contradict in many many ways what the government has told me occurred about the events of 9/11.


Now according to the government story, I have been defrauded by these documentaries, and a class action suit is in order.

Oh the irony! Turns out it would not be the first suit filed against a "fradulent" film. Get this:

Kerry Ops Drop Lawsuits Against Documentary


Vets drop suit over anti-Kerry film

By MARYCLAIRE DALE, Associated Press Writer

Three Vietnam War veterans who sued over a documentary about Sen. John Kerry’s anti-war activities have dropped their lawsuits, leaving just one court fight pending over the 2004 film.

Filmmaker Carlton Sherwood says the withdrawal of the lawsuits shows they were frivolous complaints filed by Kerry operatives to try to block the film’s release in the final weeks of the presidential race.

"We’ve always believed that Kerry controlled these lawsuits," Sherwood said Monday.

The 42-minute film, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," charges that Kerry’s actions as an anti-war activist after his tour in Vietnam harmed American POWs. It also questions the veracity of reports by some veterans about U.S. atrocities.

Sherwood continues to press his defamation suit against Kerry and campaign aide John Podesta, which charges they conspired to block the film’s release by labeling him a "disgraced journalist" and "Bush hack." The Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. canceled plans to air the full documentary on its stations before the November 2004 election.

Lawyers for Kerry and Podesta have asked a judge to toss Sherwood’s suit, arguing their actions were protected political speech.

One of the veterans who dropped his suit against Sherwood said depositions in the case threatened to take an unfair toll on family and friends. Kenneth Campbell, a University of Delaware professor who has taught a course on the Vietnam War, said he still believes the film maligns him.

"They used my image and voice from an old film to go after Kerry. I thought they painted me as a fraud," Campbell said.

Two other veterans also dropped their lawsuits, according to Sherwood’s lawyer, Robert C. Clothier. The Legal Intelligencer of Philadelphia first reported that the suits had been withdrawn.

Notice how they waited until the nation was focused on other news to do this, too.

John Kerry is a fraud at every level. And so are most of his "friends."

The AP’s article fails to note that one of the complainant, Kenneth Campbell, who claimed that the film “made him look like a liar, a fraud and a fabricator” isn’t even mentioned in the piece. (His image is shown in passing, but without any mention of his name or anything else about him.)

Here is a brief excerpt of Professor Campbell’s testimony before the Winter Soldier Investigation:

CAMPBELL. A particular way that the people I was with got rid of bodies was on Operation Meade River in November ‘68. There were some mutilated bodies. The Engineers blew them with C-4. They put 40 pounds of C-4 underneath the bodies and blew them. This was done for kicks; not just to dispose of them, but for kicks, to watch them go up…

How could anyone make Campbell "look like a liar, a fraud, and a fabricator" with testimony like that?

Of course the real reason for this spurious lawsuit was to prevent the documentary from being broadcast on television before the elections. It succeeded in that. And now the lawsuit can be quietly dropped.


So here we see the principle of what I am talking about working in reverse.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


A judgement for slander/libel in most jurisdictions would require a court to find that the theories being circulated are both malicious and credible.

It's not slander to say that public servant X has poopy pants unless a reasonable person hearing you might actually believe that public servant X poops his pants. The court would be implying that the slanderous statements were not blatantly absurd. It also has to be malicious.

So what if a court ruled that the idea of the government murdering 3,000 Americans to start an unjust war was not blatantly absurd, but that the people talking about it were simply trying to harm the government and not just making an honest inquiry into events?



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
A judgement for slander/libel in most jurisdictions would require a court to find that the theories being circulated are both malicious and credible


So then not a single thing about any 911 video documentary is credible?


So are you calling the two Pentagon police officers in the PentaCon liars, Vagabond?



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
No the govt will not sue -- but I have never heard of them being shy in using force to obtain their goal.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Not at all. I'm not saying anything about the credibility or lackthereof of the documentaries.

I'm saying that even if the government could sue, and even if we presume that it would play out as an open and shut case, it would not be in the government's interest for that to happen, because it would require them to change their tune about conspiracy theorists.

Going from "conspiracy theorists are nuts and they have no credibility" to "conspiracy theorists can be believed by reasonable people, but everything they say is still a malicious lie" is like going from "I never smoked" to "I never inhaled".

Governments prefer to be percieved as reliable and authoritative, and this requires some attention to consistency.

Besides, what would the government get out of it besides a ton of bad press? The actual damages, if any, are not readily apparent, the amount likely to be recovered would almost certainly be dwarfed by the expense of the whole affair, and it would be a tremendous headache for any official who got involved. If the government engages on this issue, what do they get for it except a lot more questions about their failure to protect this country on 9/11/01? The people might stand half a chance of getting some answers, but the government gets nothing. And when was the last time our government inconvenienced itself out of respect for our right to know?



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


Hmm, so then as citizens we have no right to expect the government to protect us against fraudulent documentary claims that can depress people into extremely unhealthy states? (like they all did to me.) I dunno if you've seen all my posts in this thread Vagabond and the angle I am trying for on this...

The government has no problem investigating monetary fraud, securities fraud and stuff like that. So why can't we demand that they investigate and bring fraud charges against these video producers on behalf of the American people? Cause for starters, they are going to have to deal with those police officers at the Pentagon, April Gallop, and quite a few police and firefighters. All technically their own employees with a story to tell under oath that contradicts theirs, and they simply could not have discovery and subpoenas take place! Or the truth will come out.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
We've got people selling DVD's all over the place. Just off the top of my head:

911 In Plane Sight
911 Ripple Effect
The PentaCon
Truth Rising
September Clues
Painful Deceptions

and plenty more.

So if the official story is true, and the government is prepared to defend their story, then why has no one from the government sued or brought charges against the producers of these DVDs for slander and fraud? I mean if it is fraud then clearly people are being ripped off, and the government has a duty to protect the people from fraud!

Uhhh, maybe because they'd be terrified to actually enter a discovery process?


We have a little something called freedom of speech.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Hmm, so then as citizens we have no right to expect the government to protect us against fraudulent documentary claims that can depress people into extremely unhealthy states?


Are you suggesting that the government should establish a Ministry of Truth for the purpose of censoring speech which the government considers false and/or depressing? I believe it would be a patriotic duty to resist such an effort by the government by any means necessary.

And note that we're not talking about slander and libel now. Now we're talking about fraud- if the documentaries are all lies, then somebody got you to give them money under false pretenses. That makes you the injured party, not the government. That puts the ball in your court, not the government's. So make a police report or file a small claims suit.

We can't expect (or desire) the government to assume willful deception and pursue a criminal case every time somebody gets paid while saying something that turns out to be wrong. Corruption and harassment would run rampant under such a system and free speech would be dead.

The government should not be looking for reasons to prosecute its citizens in the absence of any complaint or injured party.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
And note that we're not talking about slander and libel now. Now we're talking about fraud- if the documentaries are all lies, then somebody got you to give them money under false pretenses. That makes you the injured party, not the government. That puts the ball in your court, not the government's. So make a police report or file a small claims suit.


But Vagabond, that's exactly what I have been saying since my second post. Except I want a class action suit, and not just a single suit. I am already aware of course that I could do that. But the whole point is to make it class action, for the increased exposure and leverage that will bring. But the REAL kicker is how could that suit possibly proceed? Fact and fiction have to be matched up somewhere, don't they?

And the "fact" portion of this is what is at question, don't you see? Ok, so what happens then? The court just takes the government's side as the factual information, discards the video producer's "follies," and then tries to award me damages? That easy, eh? So no discovery process is entered?



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


On what grounds would the government sue? I would suggest that you research court precedents when it comes to people in "public life" (especially those in government) and slander/libel lawsuits. Besides, misinformed individuals wasting their money on the DVDs you have listed hurt George Bush/Dick Cheney/Donald Rumsfeld etc...HOW?



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
As pointed out, the people who paid $19.95 + shipping and handling for LOOSE CHANGE and their ilk are the ones who have a legal claim of being defrauded. Less than it takes to file a claim that has little chance of a clear victory with costs paid out.

The Truth movement does everything - except - come up with a clear cut consistent solid case with backed up documentation of their claims.

They have done more to solidify the so-called Official Version of 9/11 than anyone working for the US government could ever do.


Mike F



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The Truth movement does everything - except - come up with a clear cut consistent solid case with backed up documentation of their claims.


Umm, it's kind of hard to provide backed up documentation when the government itself is holding on to it and won't release it.
So yeah, that leaves us to speculation and conjecture. But considering, I don't think the truth movement has done bad. AT ALL.

So how about those videos, eh?



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

it's kind of hard to provide backed up documentation when the government itself is holding on to it and won't release it.
So yeah, that leaves us to speculation and conjecture. But considering, I don't think the truth movement has done bad. AT ALL.

So how about those videos, eh?



I probably sound more pro-US govt than I really am. There are a lot of unanswered questions that need to be addressed - serious ones.

But I feel strongly the whole Truther movement has discredited itself and continues to be disarray. So many exploiters and wingnuts have attached themselves to it. The infighting, the silly stuff like the No Planes Theory, and so on.

Who speaks for it with clear authority? Alex Jones? The Loose Change guys?
Going into 8 years later on, where do you go to call Truther Central?

The US govt couldn't choose a better opposition for itself.

9/11 will just devolve to the periphery like JFK questioners, UFOlogists, and other movements that recede with their large number of advocates but not taken too seriously by the public at large.


Mike F



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I have got to be misunderstanding you.

I think you are suggesting that if a government report supports a legal claim that you would like to make, then the government becomes obligated to hand you a legal victory on a silver platter, without you even taking the time to go see a lawyer and find out how to file a lawsuit as a representative plaintiff of a class, and if the government fails in this regard, it constitutes an admission that the report you wanted to cite is not accurate.

I grant you that if you sue, and the government throws your case out on the grounds that they believe everything in the documentaries is true, that would be a huge contradiction. But that's the least likely result imaginable. The most likely is that your lawsuit would immediately be thrown out on the grounds that there is an assumed risk of receiving inaccurate information when one researches a controversial subject.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
They haven't sued, because they probably expect propaganda and programming of the population to hold itself.



An example I posted in another thread is Disinformation by desensitization to what would be going on... example.... releasing fictional movies.


Now people might say "hey that sounds familiar," but because it is presented as fiction... over time it programs people through conditioning. At most they probably expect these activists who make movies to be nothing more than crackpots or at least look like one to the people of the world.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join