Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on April 04, 2008, 07:26:25 AM
-
3 nights ago, Keith Olbermann ran a story on Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who was trying to sell the wireless tapping bill. In his speech, Mukasey suggested that federal authorities, prior to the 9/11 attacks, failed to intercept a call from suspected terrorists in Afghanistan, when doing so could have prevented the attacks from taking place.
This is very big, of course, because it's the first time the admin has admitted they knew something before 9/11. As you know, that big Aug 5 memo was all blacked out during the 911 hearings, so we have no clue what they knew and when.
Until now. Mukasey put his foot in his mouth with the revelation and Keith Olbermann jumped on it, saying that only one of two scenarios is possible... either he is LYING, or the Admin knew about 911 before 911, and didn't act, making them guilty of complicit crinimal malfeasance. Olbermann suggested someone from Congress put Mukasey under oath and get some answers.
Congress is now acting.
scoot to 1:20
-
Top Democrats demand Attorney General provide 9/11 memorandum
RAW STORY
Friday, April 4, 2008
A letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey demands he explain a recent public statement in favor of warrantless wiretapping that suggests that federal authorities, prior to the 9/11 attacks, failed to intercept a call from suspected terrorists in Afghanistan, when doing so could have prevented the attacks from taking place.
The FISA law that existed at the time, the letter points out, would have allowed such a call to be intercepted and permission granted by the courts retroactively to do so.
Also in the letter is a repeated demand that a secret 2001 Office of Legal Counsel memorandum, outlining the Executive Branch's authority in combating terrorism, be provided to Congress.
The letter, signed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Subcommitee Chairmen Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Robert C. Scott (D-VA), appears below.
=============================================
April 3, 2008
The Honorable Michael Mukasey
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
We are writing about two disturbing recent revelations concerning the actions and inactions by the Department of Justice and the federal government to combat terrorism. These include a public statement by you that appears to suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal government's existing surveillance authority to combat terrorism, as well as possible malfeasance by the government prior to 9/11, and the partial disclosure of the contents of a secret Department memorandum concerning Executive Branch authority to combat terrorism, which has been previously requested to be provided to Congress. We ask that you promptly provide that memorandum and that you clarify your public statement in accordance with the questions below.
First, according to press reports, in response to questions at a March 27 speech, you defended Administration wiretapping programs and proposals to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by referring to a pre-9/11 incident. Before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, you stated, "we knew that there had been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went. You've got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn't come home, to show for that."1
This statement is very disturbing for several reasons. Initially, despite extensive inquiries after 9/11, I am aware of no previous reference, in the 9/11 Commission report or elsewhere, to a call from a known terrorist safe house in Afghanistan to the United States which, if it had been intercepted, could have helped prevent the 9/11 attacks. In addition, if the Administration had known of such communications from suspected terrorists, they could and should have been intercepted based on existing FISA law. For example, even assuming that a FISA warrant was required to intercept such calls, as of 9/11 FISA specifically authorized such surveillance on an emergency basis without a warrant for a 48 hour period.2 If such calls were known about and not intercepted, serious additional concerns would be raised about the government's failure to take appropriate action before 9/11.
Accordingly, we ask that you promptly answer the following questions:
Were you referring to an actual pre-9/11 incident in the portion of your statement quoted above? If not, what were you referring to?
Do you believe that a FISA warrant would have been required to intercept a telephone call from a known terrorist safe house in Afghanistan to the United States in 2001? If so, please explain.
Even assuming that such a warrant would have been required, do you agree that even before 9/11, FISA authorized emergency interception without a warrant for a 48-hour period of phone calls from a known terrorist safe house in Afghanistan to the United States?
Assuming that you were referring to an actual pre-9/11 incident in your statement, please explain why such phone calls were not intercepted and appropriately utilized by federal government authorities in seeking to prevent terrorist attacks.
Second, in the March, 2003 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum publicly released on April 1, 2008, the contents of a secret October, 2001 OLC memorandum were partially disclosed. Specifically, the 2003 memorandum explains that in an October 23, 2001 memorandum, OLC "concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations."3 On two prior occasions in letters of February 12 and February 20, 2008, Chairman Conyers requested that the Administration publicly release the October 23, 2001, memorandum.4 The memorandum has not been received despite these specific requests.
Based on the title of the October 23, 2001 memorandum, and based on what has been disclosed and the contents of similar memoranda issued at roughly the same time, it is clear that a substantial portion of this memorandum provides a legal analysis and conclusions as to the nature and scope of the Presidential Commander in Chief power to accomplish specific acts within the United States. The people of the United States are entitled to know the Justice Department's interpretation of the President's constitutional powers to wage war in the United States. There can be no actual basis in national security for keeping secret the remainder of a legal memorandum that addresses this issue of Constitutional interpretation. The notion that the President can claim to operate under "secret" powers known only to the President and a select few subordinates is antithetical to the core principles of this democracy. We ask that you promptly release the October 23, 2001, memorandum.
Please provide your responses and direct any questions to the Judiciary Committee office, 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 (tel:202-225-3951; fax: 202-225-7680). Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
Jerrold Nadler
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Robert C. "Bobby" Scott
Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
cc: Hon. Lamar S. Smith
Hon. Trent Franks
Hon. Louie Gohmert
Hon. Brian Benczkowski
-
I'll have to read this later, but IF there was sufficient intelligence to suggest an imminent terrorist attack by air, it would've been outweighed by the desire NOT to slow down air travel with extensive security searches.
The best interests of big business have always come before the safety of the consumers.
An investigation into 9/11 won't turn up anything now. It's going to require someone with a high level of access and information to turn and until that person is old or is terminally ill, it's not likely to happen. Assuming a conspiracy that has 20-25 people at the core, people earning huge profits as a result of what was allowed to happen on American soil, there would have to be at least 2-3 dozen more who were coerced into being a part of it.
It may sound a bit kooky CT, but that's entirely possible. If you or your loved ones were threatened with the prospect of being murdered while on vacation in a resort town or being poisoned with radiation, you would probably be inclined to keep silent, too. :-\
-
3 nights ago, Keith Olbermann ran a story on Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who was trying to sell the wireless tapping bill. In his speech, Mukasey suggested that federal authorities, prior to the 9/11 attacks, failed to intercept a call from suspected terrorists in Afghanistan, when doing so could have prevented the attacks from taking place.
This is very big, of course, because it's the first time the admin has admitted they knew something before 9/11. As you know, that big Aug 5 memo was all blacked out during the 911 hearings, so we have no clue what they knew and when.
Until now. Mukasey put his foot in his mouth with the revelation and Keith Olbermann jumped on it, saying that only one of two scenarios is possible... either he is LYING, or the Admin knew about 911 before 911, and didn't act, making them guilty of complicit crinimal malfeasance. Olbermann suggested someone from Congress put Mukasey under oath and get some answers.
Congress is now acting.
well actually there is a third possibility, playing devil's advocate here; they could have learned of the communication after 9/11... There are many possible means for them to use that as an excuse or even the possiblility that is the truth, not that I believe a fucking thing they say anymore... I did not watch Olbermann that night so I don't know the exact details.
-
Ok, I just listened to it. If he used the words knew before 9/11 as said on Olbermann, this is big. They had the means with FISA to do what they needed to do and looked the other way.
-
scoot to 1:20
-
whoa, 240, what happened to your post? I was just getting ready to post the video I watched which was the same video you posted just now and when I went to reply, it was removed? I didn't catch what you said, could you please repost?
-
scoot to 1:20
I see you reposted, what did you say before you deleted the post, I didn't get a chance to read it?
-
I see you reposted, what did you say it the deleted post, I didn't get a chance to read it?
trying to find the youtube clip - got it.
oh, that call would be the only real evidence linking afghanistan to 911... the other being, of course, that iffy osama confession tape we found at the most politically convenient time, and the confession we beat out of KSM, along with his admittance to things that took place after he was in jail.
it should have been #1 on the 911 commission's evidence list - the smoking gun that linked osama to the attacks.
-
trying to find the youtube clip - got it.
oh, that call would be the only real evidence linking afghanistan to 911... the other being, of course, that iffy osama confession tape we found at the most politically convenient time, and the confession we beat out of KSM, along with his admittance to things that took place after he was in jail.
it should have been #1 on the 911 commission's evidence list - the smoking gun that linked osama to the attacks.
Yes, this could be huge, what is the info you have on congress addressing the issue?
holy hell, it takes me ages to just get a page to load on getbig these days.... I love it, it took me several minutes to get this reply to go ::)
-
post #2 in this thread is that letter from the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, that's all i've seen.
Think about how FAST that was. olbermann does the news piece on Monday. by Thursday, the Chair of the judiciary committee has already sent the letter and made it public. Mukkake will ignore it or put out some canned statement of course, at which point the Chair can decide if hearings are in order.
Look at the SPEED. ya know half of congress know the incompleteness of the official story - 911 truthers are very presistent and have no doubt sent Loose Change to them more than a few times, right? They know they can't touch the issue or be branded a loon by the media.
Suddenly the media gives them a green light here... Olberbutt actually suggesting Congress do EXACTLY what they're doing now. And they sure did act fast. I cna't get over that. They didn't wait a month. They did it the next day lol...
-
post #2 in this thread is that letter from the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, that's all i've seen.
Think about how FAST that was. olbermann does the news piece on Monday. by Thursday, the Chair of the judiciary committee has already sent the letter and made it public. Mukkake will ignore it or put out some canned statement of course, at which point the Chair can decide if hearings are in order.
Look at the SPEED. ya know half of congress know the incompleteness of the official story - 911 truthers are very presistent and have no doubt sent Loose Change to them more than a few times, right? They know they can't touch the issue or be branded a loon by the media.
Suddenly the media gives them a green light here... Olberbutt actually suggesting Congress do EXACTLY what they're doing now. And they sure did act fast. I cna't get over that. They didn't wait a month. They did it the next day lol...
yea, like the old days... It must be coming up on an election year where they have to act like they're working lol...
Olberbutt ???
-
yea, like the old days... It must be coming up on an election year where they have to act like they're working lol...
Olberbutt ???
Olbermann has been bulking. He replayed his first special comment from 2006 and was definitely 15 pounds lighter then.
Stepping back... the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee just asked the Attorney General what the govt knew about 911, before 911.
They used the exact, and very well researched, terminology of criminal behavior which was delivered to millions of viewers in the MSM less than 2 days before.
He made it public record, and he did it fast. Maybe it's politics- leading an investigation into 9/11 when 67% of Americans want a new investigation is a good way to get re-elected.
Or maybe some politicians are very upset and curious about 911, and they just got a giftwrapped invite to investigate, delivered by the media.
-
Olbermann has been bulking. He replayed his first special comment from 2006 and was definitely 15 pounds lighter then.
Stepping back... the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee just asked the Attorney General what the govt knew about 911, before 911.
They used the exact, and very well researched, terminology of criminal behavior which was delivered to millions of viewers in the MSM less than 2 days before.
He made it public record, and he did it fast. Maybe it's politics- leading an investigation into 9/11 when 67% of Americans want a new investigation is a good way to get re-elected.
Or maybe some politicians are very upset and curious about 911, and they just got a giftwrapped invite to investigate, delivered by the media.
It's not like he's an obese bastard like Rush lol... He may have gained a few pounds but I don't really notice unless he shows up looking like a total lardass like Rush, then I'll poke fun. I can only hope that congress is actually on the ball but based on the past, they're only playing us yet again.
Oh dear god, it takes fucking 10 minutes of my life to reply to a single post... I thought I wasted precious time at stop lights... then there is the getbig server to rival my wait at stop lights 10 times over...
-
This sounds like a political move to gather some new lies from the admin and deflect the heat to terrorists.......The truth is NORAD shut down, Huge insurance policies were taken out......trillions in dollars dissapeared.....a building fell when it was ordered to be "Pulled" by the owner. The hole in the pentagon was half the size of the 757 that was supposed to be parked there......no parts of any of the jumbo planes have ever been found........
It was still an inside job that the govt supported...this must be known at some point.