The time it took for investigations to start
Sinking of the Titanic 6 days
JFK Assassination 7 days
The Challenger Disaster 7 days
Pearl Harbour Attack 9 days
The Events of 9/1... a reluctant... 441 days
Why .......thats all.
2006-12-02 15:19:44 · 11 answers · asked by Paul I 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
isnt evidence collection part of an investigation?
2006-12-02 15:24:29 · update #1
What was to investigate we know what happend then the responsible parties said they did it ....Oh you mean let's spend millions on what we already Know spoken like a true liberal dem.
2006-12-02 15:51:33 · answer #1 · answered by josh m 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Any Legal expert will tell you that the longer you take to investigate a crime, the less accurate the information will be from witnesses, the less reliable the evidence will be and a lot harder to bring the case to trial. People forget, other contributing factors occurred/could have occurred. That is why there is a time clause on all crimes. Murder and maybe but not sure Arson are the only crimes that have no time clause.
As far as explaining why it took so long, well that's up to you. Nobody knows the truth about anything unless you were there and took place in it. We don't know the whole truth. So take your best logical guess and make pieces fit.
2006-12-02 23:49:44 · answer #2 · answered by rehcueguy 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Now let's go back in the time machine of life. Bush did not want an investigation. I believe he said that an investigation was unnecessary because he did not want to get politics involved or some crap like that. Then the Jersey Girls came onto the scene and caused a ruckus. Now does anyone remember who was going to be the first head of the 9/11 Commission? That's right. Henry Kissinger. Now tell me how someone delaying an investigation then naming a war criminal to head it afterwords is not trying to hide something.
2006-12-02 23:28:45 · answer #3 · answered by drecarter04 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
what do you mean we know who did it after it happend, bush and haliburton (hope you can sense my sarcasm). whats more important starting an investigation when the responsible parties are claiming responsibility or trying to rescue those thousands of people trapped. Explain to those who were saved that you would rather they be investigating instead of saving there lives. im sure our intelligence agencies were on the case as quick as you could type your stupid question
2006-12-03 02:30:40 · answer #4 · answered by rizinoutlaw 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
America has been kissing the Middle East Rulers rear end for years because of oil. The so called kingship's are actually dictatorships. So they rule over the population by buying off lower leaders like church leaders and generally do nothing for the people with all their money that America sends to them.
Bin Laden is a freedom fighter. He struck us because we are an enabler for the Government of Saudi Arabia and others to continue suppressing their own people. Ben Laden struck at us because we are the money people.
Also, America cut the support off for the freedom fighters like Ben Laden who fought our war in Afghanistan against the Russia's, and after the war was won, we left an angry and war hardened bunch of fighters to fend for themselves, and they came back to bite us in the rear end. They were only successful because we, the government in this case, were asleep at the switch planning the invasion and justification of our war on the Middle East. We got hit because the Government was busy propagandizing and preparing the stage setting for the attack onIraq.
That is a part of the story. But we brought the attack on by being selfish and turned inward with our sense of power. And the nuclear shield did not detour a crazy like Laden from killing thousand of citizens. What a @@@@@@@ mistake on our part, and that mistake well be very historical.
2006-12-02 23:46:36 · answer #5 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The Bush Administration was so incredibly arrogant they didn't feel they owed the American people a thorough self-examination that might reveal their incredibly inept policy preceding the events and some of their other lies and illegal activities
2006-12-02 23:27:23 · answer #6 · answered by cwdc 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Umm.. the US knew who was responsible for the attack almost down to the names within that first week.
2006-12-02 23:28:19 · answer #7 · answered by Cameron L 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
They had to collect the evidence.
Not a small task to do when you've got 3000 dead that you need to identify and a half of city block that was reduced to rubble.
2006-12-02 23:22:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Because Bush was too busy painting that Mission Accomplished sign!
2006-12-02 23:23:30 · answer #9 · answered by whrldpz 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Nobody can explain anything to you, and you know it.
2006-12-02 23:42:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋