03-08-2015, 02:04 PM
The "aid and abet" argument is a lot more persuasive if you can apply it pre-act or concurrent with the act. However, people used to become "accomplices after the fact" by helping criminals to escape justice, though I can't really say how many US jurisdictions continue to use that theory. You'd need to identify a specific act that is a crime, for instance, making a false entry in a government document (which I assume includes airplane crash reports), and then show that the media people knew it was a false entry and intended to help the perps. A hard road, perhaps.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."