FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Mukasey's 9/11 story

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
aAzzAa



Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140

PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:07 pm    Post subject: Mukasey's 9/11 story Reply with quote

Why doesn't the 9/11 Commission know about Mukasey's 9/11 story?
Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2008-04-04 19:48.

By Glenn Greenwald, SALON

Last week, during a question-and-answer session following a speech he delivered in San Francisco, Attorney General Michael Mukasey revealed a startling and extremely newsworthy fact. As I wrote last Saturday, Mukasey claimed that, prior to 9/11, the Bush administration was aware of a telephone call being made by an Al Qaeda Terrorist from what he called a "safe house in Afghanistan" into the U.S., but failed to eavesdrop on that call. Some help is needed from readers here to generate the attention for this story that it requires.

In that speech, Mukasey blamed FISA's warrant requirement for the failure to eavesdrop on that call -- an assertion which is, for multiple reasons that I detailed in that post, completely false. He then tearfully claimed that FISA therefore caused the deaths of "three thousand people who went to work that day." For obvious reasons, the Attorney General's FISA falsehoods themselves are extremely newsworthy, but it is the story he told about the pre-9/11-planning call from Afghanistan itself that is truly new, and truly extraordinary.

Critically, the 9/11 Commission Report -- intended to be a comprehensive account of all relevant pre-9/11 activities -- makes no mention whatsoever of the episode Mukasey described. What has been long publicly reported in great detail are multiple calls that were made between a global communications hub in Yemen and the U.S. -- calls which the NSA did intercept without warrants (because, contrary to Mukasey's lie, FISA does not and never did require a warrant for eavesdropping on foreign targets) but which, for some unknown reason, the NSA failed to share with the FBI and other agencies. But the critical pre-9/11 episode Mukasey described last week is nowhere to be found in the 9/11 Report or anywhere else. It just does not exist.

Yesterday, I contacted Lee Hamilton, the 9/11 Commission Vice Chairman, to ask him whether the Commission was ever told about Mukasey's alleged Afghan Terrorist 9/11-planning telephone calls and/or the Bush administration's failure/inability to eavesdrop on such calls. Hamilton refused to comment, first claiming that he was in meetings all day yesterday and had no time to talk to me. When asked if he would comment today or whenever he had time, he said he was not going to comment on this ever, since he had not read Mukasey's speech. Calls to 9/11 Executive Director Philip Zelikow seeking comment were not returned and 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean could not yet be reached.

It's unacceptable for Hamilton to refuse to comment on Mukasey's claims. The whole purpose of the 9/11 Commission was to ensure that there was full-scale investigation and disclosure of all facts relevant to the 9/11 attacks, including the Government's actions and inactions in preventing that attack from occurring.

If the Attorney General of the United States, out of the blue, makes an extraordinary and new assertion in a public speech about an easy opportunity the Bush administration had to detect those attacks -- an opportunity he claims was lost because of eavesdropping laws -- Hamilton ought to say whether the Commission was ever told about this incident and/or whether Mukasey is telling the truth. Preventing high government officials from lying about the 9/11 attacks or exposing concealment of key 9/11 facts is his obligation as Vice Chairman of the Commission. Some type of comment from 9/11 Commission officials on Mukasey's claims is vital for generating further attention to this story and for compelling Mukasey to account for what he said.

Hamilton is currently the President and Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and director of The Center on Congress at Indiana University. Please email him at the address below, politely set forth the extraordinary claims the Attorney General just made about the 9/11 attacks (with citations to media sources about the speech -- including here, here, and here), and urge him to fulfill his obligation as 9/11 Commission Vice Chair by confirming whether Mukasey's revelations are true and/or were disclosed to the Commission during its investigation: Lee.hamilton@wilsoncenter.org.

This isn't just a matter of academic and historical interest about the 9/11 attacks, although it is that. One of two things almost certainly happened here, each of which is of great importance. Either Mukasey is lying about the 9/11 attacks in order to manipulate Americans into believing that FISA's warrant requirements are what prevented discovery of the 9/11 attacks and caused 3,000 American deaths -- a completely disgusting act by the Attorney General which obviously cannot be ignored. Or, Mukasey has just revealed the most damning fact yet about the Bush's administration's ability and failure to have prevented the attacks -- facts that, until now, were apparently concealed from the 9/11 Commission and the public.

Since I wrote about this on Saturday, there has been some slowly evolving media attention paid to it. On Monday, I discussed the story on the radio with Rachel Maddow who, as always, grasped completely its importance. The following night, she was on Countdown with Keith Olbermman, which had a lengthy and detailed segment, highlighting all of the right questions (video below). Raw Story compiled a very thorough article with the key facts, and the top Daily Kos post this morning does the same.

The great significance of this story -- that Mukasey either completely fabricated a key 9/11 event or just revealed a heretofore unknown 9/11 bombshell -- is self-evident and made clear by these growing accounts. Having Hamilton, Kean and/or Zelikow comment on the veracity of Mukasey's claims about the 9/11 attacks -- as they ought to do -- is vital for advancing the story.

UPDATE: Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission Executive Director (and former Counselor to Condolleeza Rice), obviously has no idea what Mukasey is talking about, as he replies by email (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.

That's polite Beltway talk for saying that nothing like what Mukasey described actually happened. Does anyone on TV other than Keith Olbermann care that the Attorney General of the United States just invented a critical episode about 9/11 that never actually happened -- tearing up as he did it -- in order to scare Americans into supporting the administration's desired elimination of spying restrictions and blame FISA supporters for the 9/11 attacks? We still ought to hear from Hamilton and/or Kean.

UPDATE II: I'll be on Rachel Maddow's show at 7:30 p.m. EST today to discuss these developments. Local listings and live audio feed are here.

At Daily Kos, McJoan -- who wrote about this matter today here -- has written about it again, and included contact information for key members of Congress to demand that Mukasey be compelled to account for his 9/11 claims, preferably under oath.

The reason this story has the potential to be significant is because it's easy to understand -- Mukasey's story is either true or false -- and, more importantly, nothing like it happened. He can't claim that he just misspoke or was confused because not only was there no such call from Afghanistan (at least according to everything that is known, including by the 9/11 Commission's version), but FISA could never possibly have prevented interception of any calls remotely like the one Mukasey described.

He just made this up out of whole cloth in order to mislead Americans into supporting the administration's efforts to eliminate spying safeguards and basic constitutional liberties and to stifle the pending surveillance lawsuits against telecoms. That isn't hard for anyone -- even including those who play the role of journalists on TV -- to understand and convey.

Finally, numerous people have sent me their emails to Lee Hamilton, who still hasn't commented or responded. If he doesn't soon, I think mass (though civil) calling of his office will be in order. I don't think he has the option of simply remaining quiet when the Attorney General makes a statement of this sort about the 9/11 attacks.

UPDATE III: With the help of readers, I was able to find and get in contact with Tom Kean's office, who asked that an email be sent to him requesting comment. The email I sent is here, along with the email I sent to the DOJ (at their request) asking for comment from Mukasey.

Dan Gilmor of the Center for Citizen Media -- affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University Law School -- has posted a superb piece on this matter, focusing on what it reflects about establishment press behavior. The whole thing is worth reading (Correction: Center for Citizen Media is now affiliated with Arizona State University and Harvard's Berkman Center, and no longer with Berkeley).

UPDATE IV: House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, along with two Subcommittee Chairs, just sent a letter to Michael Mukasey demanding answers to all the right questions about his 9/11 claims as well as the bizarre (though unsurprising) reference in the Yoo Memorandum to the suspension of the Fourth Amendment inside the U.S. That letter will need to be followed up with action, but it's a good start.

UPDATE V: The DOJ replies to my email referenced above, here.


http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/32481
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fernando_the_First



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Amazing. Horrifying. Good work!
_________________
"All major crime is an inside job."

Livestock detective Henry Beige (Slim Pickens) in the movie "Rancho Deluxe."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eric Eden



Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 26
Location: EU

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Mukasey's 9/11 story Reply with quote

aAzzAa wrote:
It's unacceptable for Hamilton to refuse to comment on Mukasey's claims. The whole purpose of the 9/11 Commission was to ensure that there was full-scale investigation and disclosure of all facts relevant to the 9/11 attacks, including the Government's actions and inactions in preventing that attack from occurring.


That may be so, but there are a lot of things they were supposed to do, and didnīt. Addressing WTC-7 e.g. was one of them.

Good find, I hope you can get more information on this.

_________________
If God himself asked me to invade Iran, I would ask for some I.D.
Truth sucks: Gimme Commercials, Mainstream Media and Politics.
Order calms, but chaos creates.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Mukasey's 9/11 story Reply with quote

Eric Eden wrote:
That may be so, but there are a lot of things they were supposed to do, and didnīt. Addressing WTC-7 e.g. was one of them.

To be fair, the 911 Commission was never expected to address WTC 7. That supposedly is to be done by a NIST report which, as fair as I know, still hasn't come out yet (though supposedly it was to come out in 2006 originally, I think). But the 911 Commission was never assigned the job of investigating something that would have clearly been outside of their competence like WTC 7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eric Eden



Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 26
Location: EU

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Mukasey's 9/11 story Reply with quote

[quote="PatrickSMcNally"]
Eric Eden wrote:
To be fair, the 911 Commission was never expected to address WTC 7. That supposedly is to be done by a NIST report which, as fair as I know, still hasn't come out yet (though supposedly it was to come out in 2006 originally, I think). But the 911 Commission was never assigned the job of investigating something that would have clearly been outside of their competence like WTC 7.


Here we go again, The Federal Reserve Oracle.

To be fair, I would like you to

SHUT THE FUCK UP

...when I am speaking to someone else you fucking troll.

I hope that was clear enough.

_________________
If God himself asked me to invade Iran, I would ask for some I.D.
Truth sucks: Gimme Commercials, Mainstream Media and Politics.
Order calms, but chaos creates.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Mukasey's 9/11 story Reply with quote

Eric Eden wrote:
To be fair, I would like you to

SHUT THE FUCK UP

...when I am speaking to someone else you fucking troll.

I hope that was clear enough.

Temper, temper. Be careful of your blood-pressure. Just develop a habit of checking your facts more often and you'll go a lot further. The 911 Commission was never assigned the job of investigating WTC 7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bulletin



Joined: 20 May 2007
Posts: 56

PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
...for some unknown reason, the NSA failed to share with the FBI and other agencies.

1. Hayden was Director of the NSA at the time. AFAIK, he never came up with a reasonable explanation for withholding intel from the CIA or FBI. When he shared intel with the FBI UBLU, agent Dina Corsi failed to share it with FBI criminal agents despite being given approval by NSA legal counsel.

2. He has never explained his pre-9/11 knowlege of warrantless spying (the AT&T room set up months before 9/11).

3. He held his NSA job after 9/11 and was later laterally promoted and confirmed as DDNI and CIA Director.

4. Like Goss he refused to declassify the CIA IG report and hold review panels recommended by IG Helgerson.

5. He reviewed the conduct of IG Helgerson's office evidently because Helgerson was being too harsh in relation to investigating CIA torture.

For Congress to confirm Hayden suggests anything they say on the issue is grandstanding.

This is rather telling in relation to the credibility of the 9/11 Commission's investigation:

Philip Shenon author of The Commission:

Quote:
I think one big disclosure in my book is how the commission overlooked a vast archives of intelligence about terrorism and Al Qaeda in particular at the NSA, the eavesdropping agency. I have heard that some Congressional staffers are wondering whether someone shouldn’t go back into the NSA and take a look. (When the commission made an 11th-hour visit to the NSA in 2004, it discovered some explosive stuff, but it was too late to do more.)

link


This wasn't a minor oversight. It's absurd.[/url]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The FBI and the mad bombers
Posted: December 09, 1999
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14869

"To make a long, complicated story short and simple: The FBI spent $3 million of your tax money to blow up the World Trade Center."

The FAR LEFT published this longer article, I've sent out before
http://www.takingaimradio.com/articles/wtc93.html

Judge Michael Mukasey is the judge who convicted the "Blind Sheik" (I think of conspiracy, based on his rants against Egypt) and I think some of the other bombers.

It was Mukasey who said it was GOOD THING THE FBI SUPPLIED THE BOMB AND EXPLOSIVES, because otherwise the explosion due to the terrorist plot would have been bigger, while ignoring the other facts accepted by the court that the terrorist plot existed ONLY because the FBI created one.

It was also Mukasey who stated that the Ten Amendments are secondary to the Constitution, and can therefore be abandoned or sidestepped, and who stated that "mental health administrative detention" could be used on people deemed to be threats to national security ... like dissenters.
Back to top
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ADDENDUM: The Blind Sheik, Abdel Rachman, was ranting at the USA for support of the brutal Mubarak dictatorship.

The FBI informant who orchestrated the bombing and linked it to the mosque was an Egyptian Intelligence agent, who obviously had worked for ....


Go figure.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.