Charles Key: This is the way I would respond to that, and how I've always tried to respond to that. In the way I just did--that there's indications that this may have been a failed sting operation. And I would further say that whatever the case may be it has produced a situation where public officials have taken away, or they're trying to take away, our civil liberties. And that's wrong. I'm not going to go as far to say I believe that there's government officials that wanted to do this because I don't know that as a fact. But I know what the results are, and the results are we're losing our civil liberties unnecessarily. Unjustifiably. I don't think it's necessary. It's not necessary at all.

Disinformation: Some people believe that if the bombs were inside the building then that indicates government complicity. Even General Partin said, "You have to think about who had access . . . You don't just walk through security with explosives like this." . . . But unless we have the absolute proof then we certainly can't assume that agents of the government planted the bombs, or let the bombs be planted. But the problem is--why isn't the government acknowledging that an ANFO bomb couldn't have done this? And why isn't the government acknowledging that McVeigh was seen with a lot of John Does? And that all the people in the building felt two explosions, not one? There seems to be a lot of dishonesty here.

Charles Key: My theory is that there were other government informants or undercover agents that were involved with this and that's the reason the FBI won’t go down this path to identify the other "John Does" because it will identify one or more government agents or informants. We've already had some. For example, the guy who stayed in the Dreamland Motel with McVeigh. This is another one of the instances in which the FBI has tried to claim that a person who was there with McVeigh wasn't there with McVeigh. Witnesses tell that he was there. This is the guy, the Chinese food delivery guy, he clearly tells the story that he delivered food to a hotel room that McVeigh was registered under, but the guy there was not McVeigh. And the FBI's tried to--in essence--tried to pressure him to change his story. But he's adamant. He says, "No. There was somebody else there in the room. I saw him." And, so why would the FBI not--you see, they didn't run the fingerprints. The FBI lifted fingerprints from that room. But they didn't run them. Why would you not do that?

Disinformation: Well, it could be your theory. That the government doesn't want to find these John Does because that investigation might lead back to the government--the John Does might end up being government informants or undercover agents. And if that's true, does it legitimize posing the question: Did some element in the government do it?

Charles Key: I try to maintain credibility. I try not to go and take a giant leap of faith and say the government did it. Because I don't have the facts to back that up. But I do have the facts to back up that the government refuses to find out who did it.

Disinformation: Yes, because your Final Report points out that the FBI has more than a thousand fingerprints and about a hundred palm prints and these all came from places where McVeigh was seen with other people.

Charles Key: That's right. The government does not . . . Whether its city, state, or national law enforcement, where there's a capital murder case like this one--and this is the biggest case the FBI ever had--law enforcement people don't sit around and say, "Well, I wonder if we oughta run the fingerprints." They always run the fingerprints. Especially when it's the biggest case the FBI ever had. So when you don't run the fingerprints, there's a reason for it and its not because it's too expensive, because it wasn't too expensive to run those fingerprints. They already spent eighty plus million dollars. And they estimated it might cost four hundred thousand dollars to run all those fingerprints through the thirty-five or forty million fingerprint data base it has . . . They didn't want to.

Disinformation: The fingerprints are a solid piece of evidence. They could reveal the identity of the other participants in the bombing.

Charles Key: It's rock solid evidence. And to this day the FBI still hasn't run them.

Disinformation: Shortly before the bombing, former CIA Director William Colby said in an interview that he felt the amounts of people joining the militias were dangerous. Some people would say that the government used this incident to frame somebody connected to the militias, to make the militias look bad, so that legislation would be passed that allowed the FBI to more easily stop the militia movement…Whether or not conspiracy theorists are irrational, or rational, remains to be seen. But your conviction that the whole story of the Oklahoma City bombing hasn't been revealed isn't based on theory, right? It's based on this mountain of evidence that you've documented that clearly shows that there are still many unanswered questions.

Charles Key: We're raising the questions. We've detailed them effectively. There's information in our report that has never been revealed to the public before. We feel mass murderers are still at large. We want the truth to come out. As I understand it, Dan Burton, the chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, is planning to reinvestigate the bombing. That's because there's new, strong evidence of Middle Eastern and Iraqi involvement. This evidence apparently also has relevance to the September 11 attacks . . . We have never said the government bombed its own building. I don't think we have proof of government complicity. All we have is very clear proof of government complicity in the cover-up, and wanting to cover this thing up and do whatever it takes to cover it up. That says something right there. That says a lot. But if we could ever prove that the government was involved in it that would be . . . something big. But I haven't seen that, yet.

Disinformation: The Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee (okcbombing.org; 800 334-5597) questions the extent to which the power of Government law enforcement agencies has been allowed to expand in recent years. You cite a series of articles from the Pittsburg Post-Gazzette written by reporter Bill Moushey that reveals dozens of cases in which the government "lied, hid evidence, distorted facts, engaged in cover-ups, paid for perjury, and set up innocent people in a relentless effort to win indictments." You make 17 recommendations that the Congress could implement to help curb this tide of government abuse and corruption. Ultimately, the OBIC feels it's critical that a panel be established to scrutinize FBI operations and make recommendations that can be implemented immediately. But, also, you feel the panel should be made up of mostly people outside the government, because it's often useless to have the government investigating itself.

Charles Key: Yes. Absolutely. Congress supposedly has the oversight responsibility for the FBI, but the Congress has failed to censure this out-of-control agency. The FBI answers to no one. A panel to investigate the FBI should be made up of people from the private sector--investigative journalists, political watch organizations, academia, the legal field. If it's a situation where the government is investigating itself, the FBI is investigating itself, then it just becomes another joke.

The views expressed above represent the writer and not necessarily those of The Disinformation Company Ltd.