Boy, am I glad you showed up so I don’t have to listen to “the millions of Americans” who haven’t the slightest idea of what is going on in the world. Now I can listen to you and get a real edumacation.
"Bout time!"
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
FBI 9/11 Investigations
- Thread starter cjnewson88
- Start date
"Bout time!"
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
That sentence made no sense. Feel free to explain wtf is a "high crime?" Is that a misdemeanor or a felony?
This appears to be legalize, you would have to ask a lawyer to really interpret this sentence. My lay person read of this sentence is a "high crime", is a major felony, a crime that would get you many years in a Federal prison.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Let me just explain some aspects of Basic Law 101:
Offences are generally divided into two categories viz:
1) 'Crimes' which are offences against the community at large as well as any specific victim. Murder, theft, speeding in an automotive will do for examples; AND
2) 'Torts' which are offences against a specific individual which cause damage to that individual but not the community at large.
So:
Crimes are defined by law and for most of us that means statute law (see later explanation). The statute defines the offence, nominates the 'elements' of the offence, all which have to be proved before a person is judged guilty of the crime. The standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt' where 'reasonable' refers to the 'reasonable person' relevant to the specific crime. (Details in Basic Law 102 if we get that far.) All of that by the way in my earlier post which you ignored.
The action to 'prosecute' the alleged committer of the crime is taken by the sovereign body of the community in whose jurisdiction the alleged crime took place. In the UK the is 'the Crown' in the US it is either the US or the relevant State (US lawyers may need to fine tune that - I'm an Australian Lawyer.
) Crimes fall into what is known as the 'Criminal Jurisdiction'.Torts are also defined by law but are essentially actions between two persons or parties. Negligence resulting in loss to the victim is a classic example - where 'loss' may include personal injury, damage to owned property, creating a lowered reputation for the person and such issues. Torts fall into what is known as the 'Civil Jurisdiction'.
The background or history for most of us here is the English Common Law. It is the foundation law for US federal Law and most US State law. Ditto Australian Law and AU state Law. It was essentially the accumulated record of precedents set by judges trying cases then applying what was decided in earlier case to later ones. And it had processes for overturning or modifying those precedents - we don't need the details at this stage.
In contrast Statute Law is legislated law. Law which the governing body - parliament, senate, house of representatives, whatever form it takes, has written into an 'Act' or document which defines the law. For most of us here the relevant criminal law has progressed from 'common law' to 'statute law' - US, UK, AU, NZ, CA (Canada that is) (oops yes and Ca=California...
)So you paloalto have been making claims in the area of 'Criminal Law' and where those alleged crimes are almost certainly subject to Statute Law - law that has been written down and 'enacted' into power by legislation.
So that much is the background.
Now the specific reference to 'high crimes'.
There is no such classification in law. However your meaning is reasonably clear.
Historically the common law had three levels of Crimes:
1) Treason;
2) Felony; and
3) Misdemeanour.
Often 'Treason' was included in 'Felony'. It is the crime of 'disloyalty to the Crown' i.e. the disloyalty to the sovereign or disloyalty to the nation if we translate to US. The distinction matters not for this post..
The distinction between 'felony' and 'misdemeanour' has been abolished in AU and as far as I know most British Commonwealth/Common Law jurisdictions. However it still applies in US law (AFAIK and how that may differ at Federal and individual State levels - I don't know - refer to a US lawyer.)
So you are referring to something that could be a crime, and could rank as a felony and could be subject to a penalty of 'many years in a Federal prison' but the burden of proof is with you. See my earlier post for the key issues which are still these:
So far you have not 'made out' a 'prima facie' case that a crime has been committed. The ball is in your court.
Last edited:
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Let us know how it goes.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Prior to the USA Patriot Act they (the CIA) were under no legal obligation to share anything in a timely manner either.
Absent from your accusation is the full background of the conditions which existed between the FBI & CIA from the mid-1990s through September, 2001. The CIA was being investigated by the FBI after the Aldrich Ames scandal. There was considerable bad blood between the two agencies, and there was equal anger toward the Clinton White House.
As a result nobody was sticking their necks out. Those who did saw their careers ended (see John O'Neil of the FBI, and Michael Scheuer who was reassigned from ALEC Station).
Even if someone was stupid enough to haul this into court the case the defendants would win the case. At each step, your alleged crimes were judgement calls based of a number of factors. Even then there is no evidence the attacks would have been headed off. An investigation of the Cole bombing most likely would have still been spinning its wheels on 9/11/2001. I base this on the history of the FBI and their handling of the first World Trade Center bombings, and the information they had before that attack.
The FBI has always been good at domestic terror, but has a long history of being two or three steps behind when it comes to international terror. Even today they're not as good as they could be, and this is due to their internal structure.
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
Which only debunks further any claims of "criminal" acts.
This is your uniformed opinion. The CIA was not immune to Title 18 U.S.C. §1519 which provides:
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed
Jurisdiction for a federal prosecution under § 1512(b)(3) "is based on the federal interest of protecting the integrity of potential federal investigations by ensuring that transfers of information to federal law enforcement ... relating to the possible commission of federal offenses be truthful and unimpeded." United States v. Veal, 153 F.3d 1233, 1250 (11th Cir.1998); see also United States v. Applewhaite, 195 F.3d 679, 688 (3d Cir.1999) ("It is the integrity of the process, and the safety of those involved in it that Congress was seeking to protect in enacting § 1512."). Although a defendant [or any other party with knowledge of a Federal crime or potential Federal crime] must have engaged in misleading conduct with the intent to "hinder, delay, or prevent" communication with a federal law enforcement officer, the statute makes clear that "no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance... that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government." 18 U.S.C. § 1512(g)(2). As the Third Circuit has observed, the statute instead requires only "that the government establish that the defendants [or any other party with knowledge of a Federal crime or potential Federal crime] had the intent to influence an investigation that happened to be federal." Applewhaite, 195 F.3d at 687; see also United States v. Baldyga, 233 F.3d 674, 681 (1st Cir.2000) (same); United States v. Causey, 185 F.3d 407, 422 (5th Cir.1999)"
This makes clear that it is a Federal crime to engage in misleading conduct to withhold material information from any Federal law enforcement officer. It does not say that “Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed Jurisdiction for a federal prosecution under § 1512(b)(3) can do this as long as they are working for the CIA”.
Sorry your excuse for claiming that the CIA can commit felonies falls flat. There is no criminal exemption for anyone in the CIA in Title 18. To claim that prior to the Patriot act the CIA could not share information with the FBI is claiming it was legal for the CIA to criminally withhold material information from the FBI and any official FBI investigation, this is complete BS.
Even Senator Carl Levin said this exact same thing that I just stated at the September 20, 2002 Joint Inquiry Committee hearings, when confronting Tom Wilshire, and Micheal Rolince. He stated that there was absolutely no legal restriction at all on the CIA sharing the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi with the FBI.
So why did he and the other members of the Joint Inquiry Committee not ask for a criminal investigation of the CIA at this point is the big question?
The same as your conclusions 911, uniformed opinion based on faulty logic. You missed the point of his post.
Secondly, paloalto, you keep posting these walls of text, claiming you have evidence of injustice.
What do you want us to do about it?
What do you want us to do about it?
That's nice. Since you've accused Corsi before, perhaps you can specify what record, document, or tangible object Corsi altered, destroyed, mutilated, concealed, covered up, falsified, or made a false entry into.
Note that not putting information into a document in the first place doesn't appear to be covered by this law.
Respectfully,
Myriad
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Believe it, but that is a very remote possibility.
ozeco41
Philosopher
I see that Myriad beat me to the key point but let's follow through a bit:
(BTW paloalto you have quote mined BUT there is enough to work with for now.)
Elements of proof:
1) Identify 'Whoever'
Don't go a step further until you satisfy this element of proof.
2) What is the relevant 'record, document, or tangible object'?
Don't go a step further until you satisfy this element of proof.
3) What action do you allege was taken 'alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry' - you will have to be specific as to which. AND, as Myriad has said, 'omission' is not an offence.
Don't go a step further until you satisfy this element of proof.
4) What is the 'matter'?
Don't go a step further until you satisfy this element of proof.
5) What is your proof of 'intent'? To the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' - the same standard for all these elements of proof.
Don't go a step further until you satisfy this element of proof.
6) How did the act of the accused 'impede, obstruct, or influence the....'
Don't go a step further until you satisfy this element of proof.
7) Demonstrate 'within the jurisdiction of' any department or agency
Don't go a step further until you satisfy this element of proof.
8) Identify which 'department or agency'.
Those will do for starters.
I haven't asked him. Have you?
Last edited:
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
I half agree. BUT the motive WAS NOT to let AQ kill 3000. It was bureaucratic FUBAR.
The short answer is "Not my yob!"
This is clearly, sorry to use a government cop out, way above my pay grade.
My job had been to find the facts behind why the CIA and the FBI HQ had never given the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, until after the attacks on 9/11 had taken place, attacks that had resulted in the murder by the al Qaeda terrorists of almost 3000 people. That was my job. I have in large part done that. Any resultant criminal prosecution after this point is in the hands of the people who already have this exact information. In fact they have had this information since just weeks if not days after the attacks on 9/11 had taken place. The account that I had put together was the account that the FBI investigations, the PENTBOM investigation had put together shortly after the attacks on 9/11. Their interviews of FBI Agent Ali Soufan and FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and the follow up of this information had given them the exact same information
The reports from the various investigations of the attacks on 9/11 clearly have this same information, since I had found all of the information I have presented directly from reports generated from these other investigations. This is not my information, but information that you can put together by aggregating all of the official US government investigations on 9/11.
But why did not one single one of these various reports describe in detail what I had found? After I had asked the very same question I went back through all of the reports from the investigations on 9/11 to answer just this very question. And I found the answer.
The investigations that formed the bases of these reports had all of the information that I had, they had just selectively and deliberately left out critical details in each report so the American public could not see the whole picture, or allowed high level government officials to get away with lying to the investigators in public hearings.
Starting with the 9/11 Commission report and public hearings:
George Tenet lied to the 9/11 Commission, Tim Roemer and the American people when he said that he had not talked to the President in August 2001. This was at a time when he knew a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was about to take place inside of the US, knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in this huge al Qaeda attack that would kill many Americans. The spokesman for the CIA , Bill Harlow, came out right after Tenet testified on April 14, 2004 and said Tenet had lied to the 9/11 Commission. Harlow said that Tenet had flown down to Crawford, Texas on August 17, 2001 and had seen the president again in late August in Washington DC. The White House web site said Tenet had also flown down to Crawford Texas for a 6 hour long meeting with the President on August 24, 2001, just after Tenet had been given all of the information on Mihdhar, Hazmi and Moussaoui, that these three al Qaeda terrorists were already in the US in order to take part in this al Qaeda attack.
The 9/11 Commission left out any mention of FBI Agent Soufan even though Soudan had testified twice to the Commission.
The DOJ IG report had much more detail, but also left out much of the same information. Even though he worked as a FBI criminal investigators, Soufan is almost completely missing from the DOJ IG report, he is mentioned once as the New York agent who flew out to Pakistan to debrief the CIA/FBI joint source. So are we to believe that the DOJ IG did not interview Soufan and find out that he had asked the CIA for any information on a al Qaeda planning meeting in southeast Asia or Kuala Lumpur and on Walid bin Attash at least three times and was told that the CIA had no information on any of this, when in fact they had copious information on bin Attash and this meeting and the fact that bin Attash had been at this meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi actually planning the Cole bombing.
This is just a tiny number of examples of the lengths the different investigations went to hide the complete account of 9/11 from the American people.
Soufan had asked the CIA for any information on a al Qaeda planning meeting in southeast Asia or Kuala Lumpur and on Walid bin Attash at least three times and was told that the CIA had no information on any of this. But it turns out that they had copious information on bin Attash and this meeting and the fact that bin Attash had been at this meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi actually planning the Cole bombing.
Was this bureaucratic FUBAR or the crime of withholding material information from an ongoing criminal FBI investigation.
Tom Wilshire was denied permission twice in July 2001 by his CIA managers Blee, Black and Tenet, from giving the CIA information obtained from the surveillance of the Kuala Lumpur meeting, to the FBI Cole bombing investigators, information that bin Attash had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi actually planning the Cole bombing, even though he worked at the FBI HQ as a high level FBI manager in charge of all FBI investigations of al Qaeda terrorists in the world.
Was this bureaucratic FUBAR or the crime of withholding material information from an ongoing criminal FBI investigation.
Both Corsi and Middleton also knew that bin Attash had been at this Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi actually planning the Cole bombing. Yet not only did they with hold this information from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, but they shut his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi down when these FBI HQ agents and managers knew a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US and knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were in the US in order to take part in this attack.
Was this bureaucratic FUBAR or the crime of withholding material information from an ongoing criminal FBI investigation.
When you look at the facts and what people knew, and what they did with this information, with all due respect, your argument that this was bureaucratic FUBAR just does not add up.
When did the FBI know the 2 guys were in the states? When? Date? Are you as good as CBS? Was it before 911?
Based on your logic, why are we still having traffic accidents, any accidents? Why is are any more murders? With your logic there can be no murder, no accidents, no on purpose because we know what everyone is going to do, and when they are going to do it.
Last edited: