Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So Bush ignored the message "Bin Laden determined to attack", Does it really matter?? [View all]leveymg
(36,418 posts)25. Rummy ordered the rules of engagement changed on June 1, 2001: CJCSI 3610.01A
But, commanders still had authority to order a shoot-down, unless countermanded. Apparently, Cheney was overheard by Secretary of Transportation Minetta doing that: Excerpt of Minetta's 9/11 Commission Testimony, from the Wiki:
There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, 'The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?' Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant.
The standing intercept Protocol, CJCSI 3610.01A:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf2/d302515p.pdf (scrubbed since 2006)
4.4. The Secretary of Defense retains approval authority for support to civil
authorities involving: use of Commander in Chief (CINC)-assigned forces (personnel,
units, and equipment) when required under paragraph 4.5., below; DoD support to civil
disturbances; DoD responses to acts of terrorism; and DoD support that will result in a
planned event with the potential for confrontation with specifically identified individuals
and/or groups or will result in the use of lethal force. Nothing in this Directive
prevents a commander from exercising his or her immediate emergency response
authority as outlined in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)).
AND
4.5. With the exception of immediate responses under imminently serious
conditions, as provided in subparagraph 4.7.1., below, any support that requires the
deployment of forces or equipment assigned to a Combatant Command by Secretary of
Defense Memorandum (reference (j)), must be coordinated with the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff....
AND FINALLY
4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any
form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save
lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently
serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD
Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent
emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as
authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)). Civil authorities shall be
informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written
request. As soon as practical, the DoD Component or Command rendering assistance
shall report the fact of the request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent
information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall
notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other
appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities'
written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD Executive Secretary as soon
as it is available.
---
4.4. The Secretary of Defense retains approval authority for support to civil
authorities involving: use of Commander in Chief (CINC)-assigned forces (personnel,
units, and equipment) when required under paragraph 4.5., below; DoD support to civil
disturbances; DoD responses to acts of terrorism; and DoD support that will result in a
planned event with the potential for confrontation with specifically identified individuals
and/or groups or will result in the use of lethal force. Nothing in this Directive
prevents a commander from exercising his or her immediate emergency response
authority as outlined in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)).
AND
4.5. With the exception of immediate responses under imminently serious
conditions, as provided in subparagraph 4.7.1., below, any support that requires the
deployment of forces or equipment assigned to a Combatant Command by Secretary of
Defense Memorandum (reference (j)), must be coordinated with the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff....
AND FINALLY
4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any
form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save
lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently
serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD
Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent
emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as
authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)). Civil authorities shall be
informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written
request. As soon as practical, the DoD Component or Command rendering assistance
shall report the fact of the request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent
information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall
notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other
appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities'
written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD Executive Secretary as soon
as it is available.
---
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
150 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So Bush ignored the message "Bin Laden determined to attack", Does it really matter?? [View all]
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
OP
He might have acted before the hijacking to increase security for starters.
Ganja Ninja
Sep 2012
#29
But, but, but he was on vacation clearing brush from the pig farm. Everybody knows when you're on
Booster
Sep 2012
#37
One of the terrorists in Boston was actually detained for a while, because a screener
pnwmom
Sep 2012
#62
That's just a stupid statement. Sorry, I can't pull punches. Commander of the military.
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2012
#20
Which part of STANDARD PROCEDURE for hijackings do people not understand
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#58
it was a hijacking before it hit the towers, why wasn't NORAD sent to intercept?
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#99
The entire upper echelon of the Bush administration should be in the Hague.
HughBeaumont
Sep 2012
#88
yes, instead they are writing books and doing the corporate media talk shows
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#94
Did the military wait for the President's order to intercept Payne Stewart's plane?
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#56
If you think I am defending Bush, your reading comprehension is flawed.
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#87
suggesting NORAD would have responded to this emergency if the Bushco had not interfered
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#101
Assuming you are correct, would it be fair to conclude that those who voted for junior's
indepat
Sep 2012
#132
If we can confirm how those procedures were countermanded, we have the key to LIHOP
TrogL
Sep 2012
#4
from the same bullshit corporate media that lied to our faces to start a war in Iraq
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#77
What we know now about the corporate media- they lie about anything and everything!
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#86
yes, they are so arrogant they put their PNAC plans on the web for all to see
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#96
Funny, I had always been told that the President IS the Commander in Chief of the military.
Autumn
Sep 2012
#44
While I don't think that Bush is insignificant, I have for some time thought that your main point is
patrice
Sep 2012
#14
Sorry I can't remember the titles of the books I read about this several years ago, but
patrice
Sep 2012
#26
I did read it -- but it was kind of confusing, so I understand why others were confused.
Voice for Peace
Sep 2012
#115
I read once that the changes in the chain-of-command turned out to be circular, resulting only
patrice
Sep 2012
#116
a.k.a. Plausible Deniability, a highly MARKETABLE commodity, especialy when DISTRIBUTED amongst
patrice
Sep 2012
#118
"This whole 'Bush didn't do anything' is a distraction. Bush didn't have to do anything."
ProSense
Sep 2012
#17
Just like Katrina, someone was actively interfering with the natural response to the crisis
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#21
The president's Oath of Office is to UPHOLD the CONSTITUTION, not command the military
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#64
please read up on FAA NORAD standard procedures when plane veers off course, shuts of transponder
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#103
Hey Congress, would it be interesting to know when procedures established that RADAR orientation? nt
patrice
Sep 2012
#39
It was issued through the JCS. Good question. The story I recall was the change
leveymg
Sep 2012
#59
By the time that Cheney is alleged to have said that, it was perfectly clear that an attack was in
leveymg
Sep 2012
#106
What kind of a failure is it when, as Dubya phrased it, they "hit a trifecta"?
leveymg
Sep 2012
#119
The legal term is, "with reckless and wanton disregard and depraved indifference to human life"
leveymg
Sep 2012
#134
I've read the major works that argue for foreknowledge, but find them unconvincing. Not so for 9/11
leveymg
Sep 2012
#148
Rumsfeld was the one man on the planet that had no idea about the WTC until a plane hit the pentagon
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#35
If they paid more attention, maybe they could have put Norad & the FAA on high alert.
jillan
Sep 2012
#33
It matters when the lying fucknuts claim that the idiot in chief "kept us safe on his watch".
Warren Stupidity
Sep 2012
#34
clearly! But what does it say when they actively prevented the emergency response?
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#38
That is speculation. What is fact is that this happened on their watch.
Warren Stupidity
Sep 2012
#41
It matters if he didn't make the necessary people aware there might be an attack.
Frustratedlady
Sep 2012
#36
I'm not defending Bush, but he didn't need to do anything for them to act on Payne Stewart's plane
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#42
I'm not defending Bush. I am suggesting this is more than incompetence.
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#74
if he 'ignored' it, you bet it matters. how many people died in his ginned up wars?
spanone
Sep 2012
#53
I think the general idea is that taking the warning seriously might improve response
cthulu2016
Sep 2012
#61
Clearly, he should have increased the intrusiveness of airport passenger inspections
jberryhill
Sep 2012
#63
So, you would have accepted the TSA procedures, if instituted at that time?
jberryhill
Sep 2012
#114
This sounds like apologetics for a damn murdering torturing traitor regarding his
Lint Head
Sep 2012
#85
Did he lie about Iraq leading to the deaths of millions of innocent Iraqis?
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#90
There was a plan to invade Iraq long before he was installed by the United States Supreme Cowards.
Lint Head
Sep 2012
#107
It happened on Bush's watch! Let the GOPers weasel out of that true statement!
MatthewStLouis
Sep 2012
#97
What happened to that communication link? Would it have been updated if PDBs were taken
patrice
Sep 2012
#122
Did Congress ever ask questions about the INSURANCE environment in which all of this went down?
patrice
Sep 2012
#120
Are you implying complicity or just the fact that they played dumb? nt
Guy Whitey Corngood
Sep 2012
#121
And don't forge the 2½ inch thick report that the out going Clinton Administration gave the
RC
Sep 2012
#142
It wasn't just one warning. It was a slew of them that were ignored. This is just coming out.
Cleita
Sep 2012
#140
I'm more concerned with the 5 people who recc'ed this than the bushsucking troll who posted it
DisgustipatedinCA
Sep 2012
#143