Addressing problems with the government's account

DGM said:
thatsmystory:
Just to be clear, you don't think that the USG made it happen right (MIHOP)? If you do your argument contradicts your belief.
Click to expand...
I don't know what actually happened in the lead up to and on 9/11. I suspect some US officials were complicit. Do I know this for sure? No. I would call it speculation based on the circumstantial evidence.
 
thatsmystory said:
I don't know what actually happened in the lead up to and on 9/11. I suspect some US officials were complicit. Do I know this for sure? No. I would call it speculation based on the circumstantial evidence.
Click to expand...
OK, I can accept that (not that it matters). It does however seem that your a little naive on how the US government works as a whole. Are you a US citizen?
 
thatsmystory said:
This sounds like an Ashcroft talking point. Illegal to surveil or arrest known al Qaeda operatives? Absurd.

FBI agent Kenneth Maxwell:
Quote:
"Two al Qaeda guys living in California--are you kidding me? We would have been on them like white on snow: physical surveillance, electronic surveillance, a special unit devoted entirely to them."

http://www.lawrencewright.com/WrightSoufan.pdf
Click to expand...
Yepper--anybody would.
And the two would have walked, free as birds, because It was illegal for the FBI to obtain the information from the CIA which lead to the surveillance- a point whic you conveniently ignore.
 
DGM said:
OK, I can accept that (not that it matters). It does however seem that your a little naive on how the US government works as a whole. Are you a US citizen?
Click to expand...
Yes I am a citizen.

I'm naive? Many people on this forum appear to go out of their way to conclude that at worst US officials were incompetent.
 
Swing Dangler said:
7. An investigation that holds the President and Vice President to the record,accountable, and under oath for what they say instead of off the record and behind closed doors with no clue as to what the head representative of the people of the United States had to say.
Click to expand...


The September 11 Commission was created by Congress. Whether you like it or not, Congress cannot compel the President or Vice President to testify under oath. Possibly you will say that Bush and Cheney should have done so voluntarily, if they had nothing to hide. This is identical to saying that the accused in a criminal trial shouldn't receive a lack of adverse inference from a decision not to testify. If the jury is allowed to infer that the lack of testimony is indicitive of guilt, then the right not to be compelled to testify becomes meaningless.
 
thatsmystory said:
Yes I am a citizen.

I'm naive? Many people on this forum appear to go out of their way to conclude that at worst US officials were incompetent.
Click to expand...

At best, the system is incompetent--designed to be that way, to err on the side of "not rocking the boat".
Add to that just 1 individual who sits on a datum, or who passes the buck, or hides behind "policy"--and you have a potential situation.
Our open borders, our rights to privacy, all combine into something that is our greatest vulnerability.
And I would not want to give it up, no matter how much you poersonally are (obviously) willing to give it away.
 
rwguinn said:
Yepper--anybody would.
And the two would have walked, free as birds, because It was illegal for the FBI to obtain the information from the CIA which lead to the surveillance- a point whic you conveniently ignore.
Click to expand...
How was it illegal? CIA shared their intelligence regarding Moussaou's links to terrorist groups. Was this sharing illegal?

Author Lawrence Wright will later comment, “The fact that the CIA withheld information about the mastermind of the Cole bombing and the meeting in Malaysia, when directly asked by the FBI, amount to obstruction of justice in the death of seventeen American sailors [who were killed in the Cole bombing].”

Cached text link
Click to expand...


I know Wright isn't a legal expert but it is interesting that what you refer to as illegal he refers to as obstruction of justice.
 
JCM said:
What does this have to do with the argument? Can you answer the question I posed?
Click to expand...
Why should I do research for you? It was discussed on this sub-forum just a couple of days ago. Anyone actually concerned with the truth (as opposed to the troof) would have his ducks in a row already...
 
rwguinn said:
At best, the system is incompetent--designed to be that way, to err on the side of "not rocking the boat".
Add to that just 1 individual who sits on a datum, or who passes the buck, or hides behind "policy"--and you have a potential situation.
Our open borders, our rights to privacy, all combine into something that is our greatest vulnerability.
And I would not want to give it up, no matter how much you poersonally are (obviously) willing to give it away.
Click to expand...
One of my biggest complaints is that Bush has implied he must have the crutch of police state powers (torture, warrantless spying) to prevent terrorist attacks. The reluctance to blame individuals enabled Bush to make such a dishonest case.

Are we to believe going after al Qaeda operatives was considered rocking the boat? I don't get that argument.
 
thatsmystory said:
Yes I am a citizen.

I'm naive? Many people on this forum appear to go out of their way to conclude that at worst US officials were incompetent.
Click to expand...
What I mean by naive is that you don't seam to understand the workings and the constraints that are in place on any one US politician to limit what any singular person can do. This is done on purpose for good reason.

Radical extremist exploited holes that are inherent in our free society. It was illegal for the CIA to exchange intel with the FBI. Being a member of Al Qaeda in 2001 was not illegal. Like it or not that's the way it was. Have we corrected these problems? Time will tell.
 
DGM said:
What I mean by naive is that you don't seam to understand the workings and the constraints that are in place on any one US politician to limit what any singular person can do. This is done on purpose for good reason.

Radical extremist exploited holes that are inherent in our free society. It was illegal for the CIA to exchange intel with the FBI. Being a member of Al Qaeda in 2001 was not illegal. Like it or not that's the way it was. Have we corrected these problems? Time will tell.
Click to expand...
Illegal? I'm no legal expert but such a notion doesn't make sense. Did CIA break the law by providing known Moussaoui terrorist associations to the FBI?
 
JCM said:
I didn't make the claim

The onus is on the claimant
Click to expand...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004956

This explains all about how the FBI was not allowed to share information with inteligence agencies prior to 9/11

For all the dubious conspiracy claims about the 9/11 commision, the fact that Jamie Gorelick was on the commision is one Truthers don't seem to want to talk about. Maybe that is becuase it shows that the problems in the system predate GWB.
 
thatsmystory said:
Illegal? I'm no legal expert but such a notion doesn't make sense. Did CIA break the law by providing known Moussaoui terrorist associations to the FBI?
Click to expand...

The "wall" that made it illegal had been removed after 9/11. This claim is like saying your local liqour store is breaking the law because it violates prohibition.
 
Eight years removed and we're still blaming Clinton's advisor Jamie Gorelick for the so-call "Information Wall" pre-9/11?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom