Mukasey LIHOP Gaffe?

[HereticHulk]

I can't believe no one is discussing this yet.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Quote:

April 3, 2008

The Honorable Michael Mukasey

Attorney General of the United States

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20530

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:

1.

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?
2.

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.
3.

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?
4.

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

[LastChild]

Originally Posted by HereticHulk

I can't believe no one is discussing this yet.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Yeah why so quiet in here?

[CHF]

So the Bush administration screwed up by failing to intercept a phone call? Wow, such incompetence is so unlike them.

What exactly does this do for you guys anyway? I thought you were MIHOPers.

[DC]

Originally Posted by CHF

So the Bush administration screwed up by failing to intercept a phone call? Wow, such incompetence is so unlike them.

What exactly does this do for you guys anyway? I thought you were MIHOPers.

thats the trouble one gets when putting all the CT's in one pot

[beachnut]

Yes, the all knowing Olbermann, he seems to love Bush. Wowzer, this must be a very non bias video. So Olbermann did not save us? I have to blame Olbermann for 9/11, he seems to know now what we should have done then.

HH, you are so good pointing out how Olbermann has let us down. Wow, air america. Wow. She let us down too, she seems to know we were going to be hit, was it her fault?

Who posted this tripe; It really is a bad sign to see two idiots point out in hindsight how they failed us. Olbermann and that woman from AA let us down by not warning us. But since they thing the Intel community changes with the president, they have proven they are pretty dumb on how the government works, but could they be biased?

This is Pulitzer Prize stuff, you better do something soon HH. Wow, get the prize.

But the fact is no one stepped up to prevent 9/11, and Olbermann did nothing to help; which makes this as smart as Bush, Rush, and Fox news. Thanks Olbermann for saving us from nothing; good job.

The only lesson he is, if you think you can do better; please do it.

That was one funny video. Were they being biased?

[jhunter1163]

Kinda shoots a hole in your all-knowing, all-seeing NWO, doesn't it?

And if they HAD intercepted the call, the lefties would be screaming "POLICE STATE!"

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by LastChild

Yeah why so quiet in here?

Because per usual, CTers post links and videos, but make no arguments or any other attempt at discussion.

[fullflavormenthol]

Let us also bring up the real argument. Truthers are unwilling to believe anything out of the mouth of the government, so why would they believe a story from Mukasey that is really meant to justify telecom immunity?

In the CT mindset it would be more likely to just accuse the administration of making this phone call up, because it would have been under the FISA courts anyway.

This is an example of 9-11 truth jumping on a story, because it fits their own outlook.

[CHF]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

thats the trouble one gets when putting all the CT's in one pot

Yeah I suppose it depends on the piece of "evidence" being discussed at any given moment.

Sometimes it's MIHOP, sometimes it's LIHOP.

But let's not pin twoofers down on anything...they're just asking questions, after all.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by JC

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

Does not make sense. This is fun this cherrypicking!

[HereticHulk]

Originally Posted by CHF

So the Bush administration screwed up by failing to intercept a phone call? Wow, such incompetence is so unlike them.

What exactly does this do for you guys anyway? I thought you were MIHOPers.

Let's be honest here, there is a lot more evidence of foreknowledge then just this new gaffe/admission by Mukasey. Besides, from what Mukasey said, they did not fail to intercept this particular phone call.

[gc051360]

Originally Posted by HereticHulk

Let's be honest here, there is a lot more evidence of foreknowledge then just this new gaffe/admission by Mukasey. Besides, from what Mukasey said, they did not fail to intercept this particular phone call.

It's all hindsight bias though.

[David Wong]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

And if they HAD intercepted the call, the lefties would be screaming "POLICE STATE!"

Thank you.

Their basic inconsistency of, "NWO wants to tap your phones!" and "Why didn't they tap the phones?!??" is big enough to blot out the sun. Somehow they still don't see it.

Oh, wait. That's right. They only want to tap the phones of the bad guys.

Hey, guys, why aren't we just doing that? That should be easy, right?

[Dr Adequate]

So, to summarize.

* Mukasey says that before 9/11, the government's powers of surveilance were insufficient to prevent 9/11.

* The CTs claim that what this really means is that the government could have prevented 9/11, proving LIHOP.

* The CTs claiming this are MIHOPers.

Just another day in TwoofWorld, then.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

So, to summarize.

* Mukasey says that before 9/11, the government's powers of surveilance were insufficient to prevent 9/11.

* The CTs claim that what this really means is that the government could have prevented 9/11, proving LIHOP.

* The CTs claiming this are MIHOPers.

Just another day in TwoofWorld, then.

Twoofers change between being Lihopers and Mihopers at the drop of a tin foil hat,dependeing on the latest You Tube they have seen.

[Blender Head]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

And if they HAD intercepted the call, the lefties would be screaming "POLICE STATE!"

Right, because libertarians LOVE their 'police state', correct? Not like there's one in Texas that has a radio sho- oh, there is? Wel, nevermind then!

[HereticHulk]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

So, to summarize.

* Mukasey says that before 9/11, the government's powers of surveilance were insufficient to prevent 9/11.

* The CTs claim that what this really means is that the government could have prevented 9/11, proving LIHOP.

* The CTs claiming this are MIHOPers.

Just another day in TwoofWorld, then.

To summarize further:

* It Happened The Way We Say It Happened. (IHTWWSIHers)

* No one will be held accountable. Move along, there is nothing to see here.

[ktesibios]

It looks to me like Mr. Mukasey is getting a little taste of an experience which will be familiar to all the twoofers who have popped up on this forum: he is being challenged to back up his assertions with evidence instead of political rhetoric.

Somehow I suspect that such an outcome is about as likely as a twoofer demonstrating that he actually knows what he's talking about.

[T.A.M.]

HH:

Yes I have seen this on Olbermann for the last week or two. Interesting. I think it lends credence to the "Let It Happen Out of Ignorance/Arrogance" argument then LIHOP.

That said, i agree his statement needs to be clarified, and the matter needs to be investigated. I am guessing you and other LIHOP/MIHOP wanters will be sorrily disappointed.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by HereticHulk

Let's be honest here, there is a lot more evidence of foreknowledge then just this new gaffe/admission by Mukasey. Besides, from what Mukasey said, they did not fail to intercept this particular phone call.

yes lets be honest.

The 9/11 commission report has a chapter dedicated to it "The System was Blinking Red" - starts on page 254 of the soft cover version of the book.

The warnings were vague (non-specific). We have no proof that this call reported by Mukasey is any different, but I DO AGREE more knowledge on the subject is needed. I think the details of this call and what was known need to come to the surface.

TAM

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by HereticHulk

To summarize further:

* It Happened The Way We Say It Happened. (IHTWWSIHers)

The preponderance evidence overwhelmingly supports the "mainstream" version of events, whether you like it or not.

Originally Posted by HereticHulk

* No one will be held accountable. Move along, there is nothing to see here.

Begging the question of whether anyone should be held accountable.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by HereticHulk

To summarize further:

* It Happened The Way We Say It Happened.

How do you say it happened?

Quote:

* No one will be held accountable.

Despite your best efforts to exculpate the criminals, al Qaeda were held responsible. Remember the invasion of Afghanistan?

Quote:

Move along, there is nothing to see here.

There's a coupla Truthers making fools of themselves, that's always worth a look.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

There's a coupla Truthers making fools of themselves, that's always worth a look.

[Minadin]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

The preponderance evidence overwhelmingly supports the "mainstream" version of events, whether you like it or not.




Begging the question of whether anyone should be held accountable.

Indeed. When many of these conspiracy theorists become adults operating in the real world, I hope they discover that it is often much more productive to identify problems and move to correct the situation (i.e. learn from your mistakes) than it is to assign blame for some fault that has occurred. The question of who is to blame is really quite petty if your objective is to remedy the thing causing concern.

In an organization where people are encouraged to find solutions where potential issues exist, you're going to have a much more open flow of ideas, and be able to change much more quickly and efficiently, than you will ever be able to in an entity that is always looking for a scapegoat every time there is a predicament. Not only are you expending time and resources on the wrong problem, but additionally, the tendency of folks who are worried about becoming the subject of such accusations will be to obfuscate and cover up, and it will be much more difficult to pinpoint the flaws in the system.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by HereticHulk

I can't believe no one is discussing this yet.

You just don't know where to look...

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...lirt-with.html

Gravy even drops by. Uh oh!

[Mince]

Hulk, why don't you deviate from the truther mentality and offer at least a little critical analysis of the material you present in you OPs? If you are, for whatever reason, unable, then accept my apologies.

As far as Mukasey: what, the terrorists called him and told them which flights they were going to hijack and which buildings they were going to attack? If they did tell him which day they would attack (unlikely) then maybe you have some actionable negligence. But Mukasey never said the call was specifically about 9/11. He said it was a call with threatening overtones. Wow. Big deal. The U.S. Government probably gets one of those hourly. It's quite difficult to guard against everything when someone has said they are going to kill you.

However, if what Mukasey said was true, then say goodbye to MIHOP. Truthers will once again have to adjust their positions to align to the facts.

Alex Jones, once again demonstrating his collosal obtuseness, is championing the Mukasey statement despite the fact that, if true, it contradicts his MIHOP belief, in that there really were terrorists who threatened and executed the 9/11 attacks.