Dec 17 2007
Members Of US Terrorist Cell Plead Guilty To Wanting To Kill Americans
Anyone naive enough (or in the case of liberals power hungry enough) to think we do not need to monitor terrorists overseas and see if they contact terrorists here in the US just need to recognize the fact we have found terrorists in this country:
Kevin James and Levar Washington pleaded guilty on December 14, 2007 to federal terrorism charges, according to a press release issued by the United States Department of Justice and published by prnewswire.com. The two men had conspired to attack, in the Los Angeles, California area, United States military operations as well as “infidels,” and Jewish and Israeli facilities in the region.
Prior to 9-11, if the NSA had intercepted a call from one of Bin Laden’s lieutenants to this group of terrorists they would have thrown the details of the call (who in the US, where in the US) away. That was the law prior to 9-11 That is because the FISA Court would not use evidence of probable cause from the NSA to allow the FBI to surveillance someone – even when it is blatantly obvious dangerous people outside this country were contacting folks here. Even if they spoke openly of plans to kill people, the law was nothing the NSA provided would stand up in court. BFD! How about protecting Americans from death and mutilation?
Since 9-11 the NSA was still collecting information on terrorists overseas, and detecting contacts with people here in the US. But Bush changed the law so that the NSA would pass the leads of US contacts to the FBI who would check them out. And if they found something disturbing they would take their evidence, and the NSA intel, and go to FISA to get a warrant to surveillance their suspect. The FISA Court allowed this by having the Chief Judge review application based on or containing NSA leads.
That system was working just fine until some whacko activist judge on the Court decided to publicize the entire system (illegally) to the world via the NY Times – who got everything about the story wrong (as usual). They claimed the NSA was bypassing FISA and the truth was FISA was forced to deal with threats in the US detected by the NSA (and others).
It is quite fitting that today is the day FISA will make formal the critical changes Bush put in place after 9-11. The government, over 6 years after the attack and the idiocy of our defenses were identified, is finally getting around to codifying permanently the changes which kept this nation safe since 9-11. If you ever want to see WHY we need an executive branch to take actions to serve and protect this country this is the example. 9-11 happened less than a year after Bush was sworn in and the impotent Congress has taken nearly all of his two terms to correct, legislatively, the gaping holes in our national defense that led to 9-11.
Because the sad fact of 9-11 is the highjackers contacted known terrorists in Yemen prior to the attacks and the NSA picked those contacts up. But because of the Gorelick wall and outdated laws they through the details away. They were not given the chance to tip off the FBI to the threat and save 3,000 lives. And those who ignorantly oppose these changes are more worried about the second coming of Nixon that all those al-Qaeda agents and sympathizers out there planning their next mass killing of Americans.
Really all they care about is making Bush look bad, damn the consequences.
AJ said:
“Because the sad fact of 9-11 is the highjackers contacted known terrorists in Yemen prior to the attacks and the NSA picked those contacts up. But because of the Gorelick wall and outdated laws they through the details away. They were not given the chance to tip off the FBI to the threat and save 3,000 lives.”
Your assumption that we would have stopped 9-11 if we had Bush’s current NSA surveillance system is bogus. You incorrectly assume that we didn’t have any relevant intelligence about the attack prior to 9-11. We had relevant intelligence, but the problem was we did not act upon the intelligence aggressively enough. I’ve attached a website address that provides a thorough timeline (with references to sources) of the intelligence we received prior to 9-11 and how it was communicated to and acted upon by Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?warning_signs:_specific_cases=complete_911_timeline__strike_in_us__pdb&timeline=complete_911_timeline
It includes the infamous Presidental Daily Briefing (PDB) in August 2001 entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” and other intelligence shared at the highest levels of the Bush administration. What did Bush, Cheney, Rice, et. al. do about it – absolutely nothing. The 911 Commission acknowledged the August 6th PDB and concluded that “We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the president and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al-Qaeda attack in the United States.†They didn’t hold high level discussions, didn’t convene a Cabitnet level meeting, and Ashcroft himself testified that he didn’t see the August 6th PDB before 9-11 – and he was the freakin Attorney General! If they had alerted all of the agencies of this threat and push for more resources to follow up on the leads, we may have followed up on the Minnesota flight instructors tip about the hijackers or the Arizona lead.
What makes you think that one more bit of intelligence would have caused them to go from doing absolutely nothing to stopping the attack?
I recognize that some people unfairly blame Bush, et. al. for everything, but attempting to absolve them of blame by claiming that it was the law or checks and balances that caused the problem is ridiculous. They failed us because they didn’t do anything with the intelligence and warnings they were given, not the lack of intelligence and warnings.
Conservatives are supposed to be suspicious and critical of the government. News flash – Bush was the executive/head of the government when 9-11 happened. I just don’t understand why conservatives ignore these fundamenetal beliefs when it comes to Bush’s responsibility for 9-11.
Two words conman “Gorelick Wall”
Now these Muslims are going to get convicted for trying to kill Americans, and they’ll go to jail , serve their time and hang out with the Nation of Islam and be treated like heroes. Kind of like making a pedophile serve his sentence in a kindergarten. We really need to think of some way of causing discomfort to people who break the law, instead of putting them in with their own kind maybe they should be shackled in a shack in the middle of the desert with only a weekly ration drop. Only fair, they wanted to kill lots of Americans and will try to do it when they finally get out on parole. Make em suffer, no cable, no sodas, no three hots and a cot. Make them live worse then front line troops.
Conman,
Prove we would not have stopped 9-11 if NSA had passed the leads onto the FBI to investigate. And realize the record shows that this process had already detected and foiled attacks and saved lives!
Prove it if you can.
AJ,
Your argument is a strawman. You know it is difficult or impossible to prove a negative under such speculative circumstances. That’s like me saying to you – prove that we are safer as a result of invading and occupying Iraq. Does that mean that because you cannot possibly prove it (as opposed to speculate or offer an opinion) that we are less safe due to the Iraq war? All we can do under these circumstances is speculate as to what would or would not have happened if different events/decisions had been made based on the facts we know and reasonable assumptions. What I did prove is that the Bush administration had significant intelligence of an Al Qaeda attack in the Summer of 2001 and did nothing about it. That is a fact you have yet to dispute. Based on those facts, I don’t think it is a reasonable assumption to presume that one more piece of intelligence would have made the difference between Bush doing absolutely nothing and stopping 9-11. Other than telling me I’m wrong unless I can absolutely prove a negative about something that is inherantly speculative, you have not said anything to dispute my argument.
As for your statement that “the record shows that this process had already detected and foiled attacks and saved lives,” that is pure specualtion. I’ll use the same strawman argument as you – prove it. How do you know that the terrorist that we have caught since 9-11 would not have been caught or stopped without the NSA surveillance program? Neither you nor I can possibly prove this one way or the other because all of this information is secret. The so-called record you refer to is nothing more than the Bush administration’s claim that it has rendered these results. Call me a skeptic, but a White House blanket claim that a secret program it wants to retain and expand is working hardly qualifies as a fact to me regardless of whether or not it is Democrat or Republican occupying it. I thought you conservatives were skeptical of government as well, but it doesn’t seem to be the case when it involves a fellow Republican.
>What I did prove is that the Bush administration had significant intelligence of an Al Qaeda attack in the Summer of 2001 and did nothing about it
Yawn.
Next
Conman,
There is no speculation that the NSA has detected and foiled attacks. That has been reported by reputable mainstream media many times, which is why I gave you the challenge. Clearly you are not as well versed on this matter as you thought.
AJStrata
AJ,
So now you think the mainstream media is reliable? The mainstream media reported what the Bush administration told it. The Bush administration has simply said that the NSA surveillance program has led to these captures. It provided no details to support its contention nor could it – it is secret information and describing the specific methods would jeopardize the program based on Bush’s own claim. The mainstream media cannot verify these statements because it does not have access to this secret information. Once again, the fact that the Bush adminstration is saying that the secret program it is advocating is the single reason we stop all of these terrorist plots hardly qualifies as a fact, even if the mainstream media quotes them on it.
By the way, I noticed that you keep making statements without proof. Then when I challenge you on those statements, you assume you are right unless I can prove you wrong. Nice circular logic.
Conman,
Clearly your ego cannot face facts that don’t support your naive conspiracy theories.
I have proof, I am just not responsible for your lack of information. I have couple hundred posts on the matter from the day the news broke. Knock yourself out! I don’t do homework for others. You will find it all there – unless you are afraid to face the fact you are wrong.
In which case you will come up with some lame excuse why you won’t check out the facts…..
Liberals are so predictable.
AJ,
I reviewed a number of your previous posts on this topic as you suggested. I think you need to look up the word “fact” in the dictionary because it is pretty clear to me that you are a bit confused about this term. Here is my analysis of these posts.
They predominantly consist of your opinion about this matter. Unless you have inside information on the internal workings of the NSA program or the surveillance of terrorist to support your theories that you cannot disclose due to secrecy concerns, these statements are merely your opinion. Your opinion is not a fact, no matter how highly you think of yourself.
You do provide links to newspaper/blog articles in some instances to support your opinion. I agree that it lends some credibility to your opinion, but it hardly constitutes a fact. The problem is you also reference several other newspaper/blog articles that contradict your position on these issues and dismiss them as wrong. I guess your definition of facts only includes those media or blog reports that support your assumptions and beliefs. Again, a media/blog statement is not a fact simply because you want it to be true.
You repeatedly claim that the NSA surveillance program must be working because we have not had a terrorist attack in the US since 9-11 after Bush implemented it. Another strawman argument because you cannot prove that is the reason (I know, I know, it is presumed a fact unless I can disprove it in your universe). You conservatives conveniently forget that the first terrorist attack in the US occured in 1993 when a radical islamic group financed by al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed detonated a car bomb in the parking garage of the World Trade Center. The next terrorist attack did not occur until 8 years later when 9-11 happened. Under your theory, I guess the FISA program in effect during this time period worked because no terrorist attacks occured.
The most glaring flaw in your posts is the complete lack of evidence to support your assumption that the terrorist plots that have been discovered and foiled are due to the NSA surveillance program. Even the article you mentioned in the November 14th post about the Justice Department investigations does not claim that these 19 plots were foiled due to the NSA surveillance. It may have helped in some instances, but we don’t know when and the extent that it resulted in stopping the terrorist plot. You repeatedly assume that it is THE reason in every single instance when it is not possible for you to know because all of that information is secret and not publicly available. That is my primary problem with your theory – it is impossible for you or I to know for sure because our universe of facts is limited to what the government tells us about these secret programs and terrorist plots. Did you forget about the Iraq WMD intelligence debacle already?
I do not dispute the fact that terrorism is a threat and that we need to improve our intelligence gathering and coordination to thwart this threat. I just don’t accept Bush’s claim that we cannot do it effectively without the current NSA program and that you/I know what that program entails. You repeatedly claim that the NSA program does not include domestic communications, but I question that assumption as well. Whistleblowers from AT&T and Verizon involved in assisting the NSA recently testified to Congress that the program appears to involve intercepting all communications, domestic and international, which has not been discredited or disputed by the White House. When Gonzales testified before the Judiciary Committee this Fall and was repeatedly asked if there are any NSA programs that involve the interception of domestic communications, he refused to provide a direct answer and simply said that the program Bush had publicly disclosed does not involve such actions. He specificallhy refused to answer questions about any other possible NSA programs for secruity reasons. Now Bush is willing to jeopardize the entire program unless Congress agrees to include retroactive immunity to the telecomm companies so all of these law suits seeking more information about the scope of the program will be dismissed. Why would they go to such lengths if they didn’t have something big to hide? Why would the Democrats be rushing to help push it through – as you said, because they don’t want their Democratic base to realize they knew about the scope and were going along with it. These are only examples of the evidence supporting my theory that the program is much broader than you believe. I acknowledge that I can’t prove it for many of the same reasons you can’t prove your theories, but I’m suspicious based on the facts I’ve listed above and other corroborating evidence.
There. I faced the “facts” and discovered that they are predominately the opinion of some blogger that thinks he is more in the know than really is the case.
Conman,
Yes, I do have inside knowledge and my early predictions became facts as more and more of the story came true. I also have access to folks who with legal ties to the federal government. And the reason they keep a lid on the details is obvious (the same reason I don’t go into them). The details tell the terrorists how to avoid being detected.
And you have what? Opinions? I don’t need a dictionary. I have been proven correct time and time again. But you go ahead and deny it all you want, no skin off my back.
I’ll be here January when the Dems fold again. Because as I noted – they know the facts too.
AJ,
Well, I guess we will have to end our discussion here on this issue because you won’t engage me on the specific issues and facts. It makes it difficult to engage you in a discussion when: (1) you presume that all of your predictions and opinions are facts until someone disproves them with specific evidence; (2) on the other hand, you can completely dismiss opposing opinions that provide actual factual bases to support them simply by claiming they are wrong and a vague claim that you have proved them wrong in the past on some unidentified post; (3) your theories are largely supported by your general claim to have access to secret inside information, even though you cannot substantiate it or provide any information regarding the source or extent of that information because it is supposedly “highly sensitive”; and (4) you believe that you have always been right in the past and never wrong, and therefore presume the same will be the case with future predictions.
Wow, you have created quite a mechanism for insulating yourself from any opposing view points that actually may broaden your knowledge.
You can lable me a liberal who cannot face the “truth” all you want – the only thing you know about me is that I disagree with your position on this issue and related issues I’ve commented on your blog. I’m certainly more liberal than you, but less liberal than you think. I have read quite a bit of your blog and been persuaded to alter my opinion on some issues. You are obviously a bright and knowledgeable person, but clearly not as much as you think of yourself. It’s disappointing that you don’t appear to be willing to consider these issue with the same open mind. But I guess most bloggers (conservative and liberal) consider these blogs solely as a means of bolstering their partisan beliefs and positions than actually trying to get at the truth.
LOL! Yeah Conman, if you want to challenge my points you need to bring some facts with you.
Too funny.