Re: RE: NATO gets proof

> If the proof is so compelling, why not make it public? Especially 
> sinceWashington hasn't given the slightest indication it has any 
> intent of
> actually pursuing a legal case against anyone involved.

> I suspect if there were such compelling evidence, we'd have seen 
> it by now.

Are you claiming that the US is purposefully lying to the public and 
the world just in order to get revenge on a man that didn't commit the 
crime they want justice for or that they are too stupid to release 
overwhelming evidence to the world that would obviously support their 
position?  Doesn't it make more sense that they simply don't want to 
give away any advantage to these terrorists no matter how small, be it 
an inside source whose life might be endangered or a mistake in their 
planning that they may repeat, or perhaps even because they don't give 
a high prority right now to explaining thousands upon thousands of 
documents and sources to six billion people that each have their own 
version of the facts.  It is an admirable trait of our democracy that 
it is one of the most transparent in the world, however that does not 
mean that it must release all information as soon as it recieves, 
particularly if it endangers ongoing processes.