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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: FBI chief says spy tactics could have stopped 9/11 attacks [View all]OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)22. Well, that's interesting.
From the article:
He described how Khalid al-Midhar, one of the 9-11 hijackers, had called a Yemeni safe house from a phone in San Diego shortly before the attack a phone call that would have been intercepted and acted upon, claimed Mueller, had today's surveillance system been in place.
On March 27, 2008, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, speaking at the Commonwealth Club in defense of the Bush Administrations surveillance program and proposing changes to FISA, made the statement that before the 2001 terrorist attacks:
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 didnt know precisely where it went. Youve got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didnt come home, to show for that. (Egelko, 2008).
In a letter to Attorney General Mukasey from Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; Rep. Jerry Nadler, Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties; and Rep. Bobby Scott, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security (hereinafter Conyers Letter), Rep. Conyers responds to Attorney General Mukaseys statement:
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 prevented 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. If such calls were known about and not intercepted, serious additional concerns would be raised about the governments failure to take appropriate action before 9/11. (Conyers, Nadler, Scott, 2008).
In a statement provided to Glenn Greenwald (2008) at Salon, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, stated:
I am unfamiliar with the telephone call that Attorney General Michael Mukasey cited in his appearance in San Francisco on March 27. The 9/11 Commission did not receive any information pertaining to its occurrence.
Additionally, Greenwald (2008) provides an email response from Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission Executive Director (and former Counselor to Condolleeza Rice) (ellipses in original):
Not sure of course what the AG had in mind, although the most important signals intelligence leads related to our report -- that related to the Hazmi-Mihdhar issues of January 2000 or to al Qaeda activities or transits connected to Iran -- was not of this character. If, as he says, the USG didn't know where the call went in the US, neither did we. So unless we had some reason to link this information to the 9/11 story....
In general, as with several covert action issues for instance, the Commission sought (and succeeded) in publishing details about sensitive intelligence matters where the details were material to the investigative mandate in our law.
In general, as with several covert action issues for instance, the Commission sought (and succeeded) in publishing details about sensitive intelligence matters where the details were material to the investigative mandate in our law.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
35 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
Bullshit. This surveilence has been in place for 12 yeasrs and it didn't prevent the Boston bombings
snagglepuss
Jun 2013
#4
Sure and DUI checkpoints don't stop all deaths by DUI, so let's stop having those checkpoints.
JoePhilly
Jun 2013
#8
Yes, and the Bush administration might could have prevented it had they heeded the warnings from the
ladjf
Jun 2013
#6
Yes. Their performance may well have put them in the "treason" range. But, we all know
ladjf
Jun 2013
#16
Unless of course they actually read the memo which said that intel was working to confirming a plan
24601
Jun 2013
#33
But couldn't stop the Boston Marathon attack. Pull my other finger Mueller. n/t
Catherina
Jun 2013
#10
The problem isn't lack of information, the problem is internal to the FBI (and others).
SharonAnn
Jun 2013
#14
Not meddling in the Middle East could have stopped 9/11 attacks. Far more likely, in fact.
Gregorian
Jun 2013
#20
Um, we were onto the terrorists before 9/11. Bushco just chose to ignore the threat.
kestrel91316
Jun 2013
#26