A couple of reliable articles about the Stanley Hilton lawsuit.

[madfloridian]

I believe this blog is pretty acceptable and credible. This is from Sept. 14, 2004.
http://www.bopnews.com/archives/001578.html

And the wheels grind exceeding slow. From TruthOut in 2002 by Will Pitt...whom we also believe to be quite credible. Good article.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/06.21A.pitt.watchtower.htm

Both are long, but it explains the lawsuit by this lawyer on behalf of some 9/11 survivors.

From Will's article:

SNIP:"Mr. Hilton, by filing his lawsuit, has joined the ranks of an ever-increasing body of Americans who subscribe to what they call the LIHOP Theory. LIHOP stands for Let It Happen On Purpose. The LIHOP Theory puts forward the accusation that Bush and his people allowed the September 11th attacks to take place, despite the fact that they had been repeatedly warned of an impending strike.

The LIHOP Theory is straightforward: In the months before 9/11, American intelligence agencies received ominous warnings from the intelligence services of nations like Israel, Russia, Egypt and Germany. These warnings were pointed - an attack involving hijacked aircraft and prominent American landmarks was imminent, our security forces were told. Bush himself was briefed of these warnings weeks before they happened. Instead of responding vigorously to these warnings, the Bush administration and its security apparatus did nothing.

LIHOP is, of course, the purest breed of conspiracy theory, involving high-ranking members of government from both parties, as well as the CIA, FBI and NSA. Like all good conspiracy theories, LIHOP is surrounded by disturbing facts and bits of evidence that are difficult to ignore....."

Lots of reading here, from articles 2 years apart.

[shance]

1. Enlightening stuff Floridian. Certainly deserves major focus.

I think what one of the bloggers said was a good point.

If the allegations are not valid or are not legitimate, why the intimidation, threats, burglaring, etc? It certainly could be seen as though they are hiding something(s).

A friend of mine said a while back that the Patriot Act was specifically designed for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity.(?) I thought that was an interesting perspective. It certainly seems to be proving to be true in many cases.

[madfloridian]

2. Blogging of the President is a good site...read these comments.

Suit was filed two years ago. Long time in between.

SNIP..."The case presents a range of important legal precedents:

whether a president can deliberately lie and defraud and deceive the Congress into delegating war making powers and unconstitutional search and seizure powers to the government, under the false pretext that "terrorists" have to be rooted out everywhere even though it means tearing up the constitution;

whether a self-proclaimed and totally fraudulent state of "perpetual national emergency and perpetual war on terror," as defined- by Bush etc, can justify "suspending" and vitiating the Constitution;

and whether taxpayers have standing to challenge the government in this fraudulent exercise of power.

The short version, in Matt Stoller's plain English: "treason".

The legal issues here are far beyond my sphere of expertise, but I invite knowledgable BOP readers to comment on the merits of the case and legal issues at play."