Re: RE: NATO gets proof

Its not an either/or proposition -- they could have weaker evidence than 
they claim, or the bin Laden business could be disinformation.  Who 
knows?  The need for secrecy is one option,  but not necessarily the 
only one.  The gov't does purposefully lie, for good reasons and for bad 
ones, sometimes.




On Tuesday, October 2, 2001, at 07:28 PM, [email protected] wrote:

>
>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bonobos maillist  -  Bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]
> http://monkeyfist.com/mailman/listinfo/bonobos