Moussaoui trial testimony "criminal negligence and obstruction"

fishbob · 20th March 2006, 06:08 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Quote:

The FBI agent who arrested Zacarias Moussaoui weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks described with great regret today how his superiors in Washington repeatedly blocked his attempts to find out whether Moussaoui was part of a widespread terrorist cell intent on attacking the United States. . . .

Samit said his superiors told him right after the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon that it was "just a coincidence" unrelated to the case he was trying to make against Moussaoui. . . .

His testimony undermined the prosecution's argument for sentencing Moussaoui to death, even though he was in jail for overstaying his visa at the time of the attacks.

The government is trying to show that Moussaoui's failure to cooperate with the FBI led to the widespread loss of life that day because otherwise the bureau could have prevented it. The defense contends that the bureau's own failures were to blame.

Boy, Moussaoui sure is lucky that our guys are so (*&^$*( ^*(&$ stupid.

Mephisto · 20th March 2006, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by fishbob

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Boy, Moussaoui sure is lucky that our guys are so (*&^$*( ^*(&$ stupid.

Which goes right along with my point about airport security and NSA wiretapping. I can't remember who said it (I think it was a noteworthy journalist), but the FBI was once described as, "an organization that couldn't find a bleeding elephant in the snow." Security in America is a joke - we can't find bombs or guns in luggage at our airports, the seaports are unprotected and were nearly sold to the UAE (which btw, was in the news today for supporting Hamas), chemical plants and nukeular power plants remain unprotected, they don't believe their own when they hold vital information regarding terrorist activity in the U.S. (don't forget Richard Clarke) and they want to listen in on people's phone conversations?

Tmy · 20th March 2006, 06:56 PM

Why sentence a guy to death when he was planninng to die in an attack?

Wouldnt it be better to have him rot in jail.

RandFan · 20th March 2006, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Mephisto

Which goes right along with my point about airport security and NSA wiretapping. I can't remember who said it (I think it was a noteworthy journalist), but the FBI was once described as, "an organization that couldn't find a bleeding elephant in the snow." Security in America is a joke - we can't find bombs or guns in luggage at our airports, the seaports are unprotected and were nearly sold to the UAE (which btw, was in the news today for supporting Hamas), chemical plants and nukeular power plants remain unprotected, they don't believe their own when they hold vital information regarding terrorist activity in the U.S. (don't forget Richard Clarke) and they want to listen in on people's phone conversations?

Hey Mephisto,

I thought that the UAE deal was stupid but I don't anymore. People far smarter than me on this forum put that notion to rest. Did you follow any of the discussions?

I'm not at all happy about the state of affairs. I have been very critical of Bush et al for security but I don't see things quite the way you do. You seem to want to get everything including the kitchen sink in your post. FWIW I think your wiretapping point works against you. I WANT them to listen to people's phone calls. That's a damn good source of information. I just want them to follow the law and get a warrant.

fishbob · 20th March 2006, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

Why sentence a guy to death when he was planninng to die in an attack?

Wouldnt it be better to have him rot in jail.

Deliberately, with intent to fit the crime is one thing. By accident through incompetence is quite another.

Crazytree · 20th March 2006, 10:55 PM

There was a guy on another forum who was going on and on about how wireless warranttaps were the cat's pajamas. I kept on going on on and on about the importance of privacy in our society... but these admonitions fell on deaf ears.

Until of course I found his Americansingles.com profile and posted it:

Quote:

I want to find a good looking girl, 18-19 years old, that I can develop a fun and intimate relationship with. I prefer someone who is low maintenance and easygoing, and also likes to have fun.

Quote:

First we would go out to dinner. From there we would drive somewhere nice and take a nice long walk in the moonlight. From there, anything can happen.

Quote:

I have never been involved in a serious romantic relationship, so I am just going to have to learn as I go along.

Then privacy became a VERY big deal!

RandFan · 20th March 2006, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Crazytree

There was a guy on another forum who was going on and on about how wireless warranttaps were the cat's pajamas. I kept on going on on and on about the importance of privacy in our society... but these admonitions fell on deaf ears.

Until of course I found his Americansingles.com profile and posted it:

Then privacy became a VERY big deal!

Shazaam!

Art Vandelay · 21st March 2006, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by Mephisto

Which goes right along with my point about airport security and NSA wiretapping. I can't remember who said it (I think it was a noteworthy journalist), but the FBI was once described as, "an organization that couldn't find a bleeding elephant in the snow." Security in America is a joke - we can't find bombs or guns in luggage at our airports, the seaports are unprotected and were nearly sold to the UAE (which btw, was in the news today for supporting Hamas),

Why do people insist on flaunting their ignorance?

Originally Posted by Crazytree

Until of course I found his Americansingles.com profile and posted it:
Then privacy became a VERY big deal!

So keeping track of terrorists is comparable to invading someone's privacy simply to make a point?

Silly Green Monkey · 22nd March 2006, 01:05 AM

Was it really an invasion of privacy if the profile was posted online?

20th March 2006, 06:08 PM	#1
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,667	Moussaoui trial testimony "criminal negligence and obstruction" http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines Quote: The FBI agent who arrested Zacarias Moussaoui weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks described with great regret today how his superiors in Washington repeatedly blocked his attempts to find out whether Moussaoui was part of a widespread terrorist cell intent on attacking the United States. . . . Samit said his superiors told him right after the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon that it was "just a coincidence" unrelated to the case he was trying to make against Moussaoui. . . . His testimony undermined the prosecution's argument for sentencing Moussaoui to death, even though he was in jail for overstaying his visa at the time of the attacks. The government is trying to show that Moussaoui's failure to cooperate with the FBI led to the widespread loss of life that day because otherwise the bureau could have prevented it. The defense contends that the bureau's own failures were to blame. Boy, Moussaoui sure is lucky that our guys are so (&^$( ^*(&$ stupid.
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder "Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist. I hate bigots.

20th March 2006, 06:49 PM	#2
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: in a state of disbelief Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by fishbob http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines Boy, Moussaoui sure is lucky that our guys are so (&^$( ^*(&$ stupid. Which goes right along with my point about airport security and NSA wiretapping. I can't remember who said it (I think it was a noteworthy journalist), but the FBI was once described as, "an organization that couldn't find a bleeding elephant in the snow." Security in America is a joke - we can't find bombs or guns in luggage at our airports, the seaports are unprotected and were nearly sold to the UAE (which btw, was in the news today for supporting Hamas), chemical plants and nukeular power plants remain unprotected, they don't believe their own when they hold vital information regarding terrorist activity in the U.S. (don't forget Richard Clarke) and they want to listen in on people's phone conversations?
	__________________ "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi Last edited by Mephisto; 20th March 2006 at 06:53 PM.

20th March 2006, 06:56 PM	#3
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Why sentence a guy to death when he was planninng to die in an attack? Wouldnt it be better to have him rot in jail.
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

20th March 2006, 07:04 PM	#4
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,398	Originally Posted by Mephisto Which goes right along with my point about airport security and NSA wiretapping. I can't remember who said it (I think it was a noteworthy journalist), but the FBI was once described as, "an organization that couldn't find a bleeding elephant in the snow." Security in America is a joke - we can't find bombs or guns in luggage at our airports, the seaports are unprotected and were nearly sold to the UAE (which btw, was in the news today for supporting Hamas), chemical plants and nukeular power plants remain unprotected, they don't believe their own when they hold vital information regarding terrorist activity in the U.S. (don't forget Richard Clarke) and they want to listen in on people's phone conversations? Hey Mephisto, I thought that the UAE deal was stupid but I don't anymore. People far smarter than me on this forum put that notion to rest. Did you follow any of the discussions? I'm not at all happy about the state of affairs. I have been very critical of Bush et al for security but I don't see things quite the way you do. You seem to want to get everything including the kitchen sink in your post. FWIW I think your wiretapping point works against you. I WANT them to listen to people's phone calls. That's a damn good source of information. I just want them to follow the law and get a warrant.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

20th March 2006, 10:30 PM	#5
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,667	Originally Posted by Tmy Why sentence a guy to death when he was planninng to die in an attack? Wouldnt it be better to have him rot in jail. Deliberately, with intent to fit the crime is one thing. By accident through incompetence is quite another.
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder "Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist. I hate bigots.

20th March 2006, 10:55 PM	#6
Crazytree Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 148	There was a guy on another forum who was going on and on about how wireless warranttaps were the cat's pajamas. I kept on going on on and on about the importance of privacy in our society... but these admonitions fell on deaf ears. Until of course I found his Americansingles.com profile and posted it: Quote: I want to find a good looking girl, 18-19 years old, that I can develop a fun and intimate relationship with. I prefer someone who is low maintenance and easygoing, and also likes to have fun. Quote: First we would go out to dinner. From there we would drive somewhere nice and take a nice long walk in the moonlight. From there, anything can happen. Quote: I have never been involved in a serious romantic relationship, so I am just going to have to learn as I go along. Then privacy became a VERY big deal!

20th March 2006, 11:05 PM	#7
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,398	Originally Posted by Crazytree There was a guy on another forum who was going on and on about how wireless warranttaps were the cat's pajamas. I kept on going on on and on about the importance of privacy in our society... but these admonitions fell on deaf ears. Until of course I found his Americansingles.com profile and posted it: Then privacy became a VERY big deal! Shazaam!
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

21st March 2006, 11:49 PM	#8
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by Mephisto Which goes right along with my point about airport security and NSA wiretapping. I can't remember who said it (I think it was a noteworthy journalist), but the FBI was once described as, "an organization that couldn't find a bleeding elephant in the snow." Security in America is a joke - we can't find bombs or guns in luggage at our airports, the seaports are unprotected and were nearly sold to the UAE (which btw, was in the news today for supporting Hamas), Why do people insist on flaunting their ignorance? Originally Posted by Crazytree Until of course I found his Americansingles.com profile and posted it: Then privacy became a VERY big deal! So keeping track of terrorists is comparable to invading someone's privacy simply to make a point?

22nd March 2006, 01:05 AM	#9
Silly Green Monkey Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,048	Was it really an invasion of privacy if the profile was posted online?