PDA

View Full Version : Attorney General Mukasey hints US had attack warning before 9/11


jAZ
04-01-2008, 11:16 PM
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Mukasey_US_had_attack_evidence_before_0401.html

Mukasey hints US had attack warning before 9/11
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Tuesday April 1, 2008

When Attorney General Mukasey delivered a speech last week demanding that Congress grant the president warrantless eavesdropping powers and telecom immunity, the question and answer session afterwards included one extraordinary but little-noticed claim.

Mukasey argued that officials "shouldn't need a warrant when somebody with a phone in Iraq picks up a phone and calls somebody in the United States because that's the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that's the call that we didn't know about. We knew that there has 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."

Blogger Glenn Greenwald picked up on Mukasey's statement, suggesting, "If what Muskasey said this week is true -- and that's a big 'if' -- his revelation about this Afghan call that the administration knew about but didn't intercept really amounts to one of the most potent indictments yet about the Bush administration's failure to detect the plot in action. Contrary to his false claims, FISA -- for multiple reasons -- did not prevent eavesdropping on that call."

Keith Olbermann has now featured the story on MSNBC's Countdown. "What?" Olbermann asked incredulously after quoting Mukasey. "The government knew about some phone call from a safe house in Afghanistan into the U.S. about 9/11? Before 9/11? ... You didn't do anything about it?"

"Either the attorney general just admitted that the government for which he works is guilty of malfeasant complicity in the 9/11 attacks," Olbermann commented, "or he's lying."

"I'm betting on lying," concluded Olbermann. "If not, somebody in Congress better put that man under oath right quick."

After September 11, 2001, it was revealed that the CIA and FBI had intercepted a variety of messages including phrases such as "There is a big thing coming," "They're going to pay the price" and "We're ready to go." None of these messages gave specific details and none reached intelligence analysts until after the destruction of the World Trade Center.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Mukasey did not specify the call to which he referred. He also did not explain why the government, if it knew of telephone calls from suspected foreign terrorists, hadn't sought a wiretapping warrant from a court established by Congress to authorize terrorist surveillance, or hadn't monitored all such calls without a warrant for 72 hours as allowed by law. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for more information."

This video is from MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, broadcast March 31, 2008.

patteeu
04-02-2008, 06:59 AM
I think I need you to talk me through this one and explain to me what is damning about that quote.

CHIEF4EVER
04-02-2008, 07:55 AM
LMAO

There it is jAZ! There is the proof that it was all Bush's fault! And from OLBERMAN no less! LMAO

banyon
04-02-2008, 08:48 AM
I think I need you to talk me through this one and explain to me what is damning about that quote.

I think he means this one?

And before 9/11, that's the call that we didn't know about. We knew that there has 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 know, the key piece of news (if true) that had not ever been heard before.

StcChief
04-02-2008, 08:51 AM
so it's Pearl Harbor all over with FDR knowing.

Duck Dog
04-02-2008, 09:18 AM
It's so easy. A call is made from Afghanistan to the US. We do not know the context or contents of the call. We do not know who made the call or received the call.

How in the hell did Bush not know what was going to happen?

CHIEF4EVER
04-02-2008, 09:46 AM
We knew that there has 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.

Translation:

"A call was placed from what we believed to be a safe house but we don't know who placed the call, why it was placed or to whom it was placed other than it being someone in the US. For all we know it could have been a conversation by a random Afghan to his relative living in the US about the appropriate amount of time to ferment goat cheese".

LMAO

You're on a roll jAZ. Bush should just throw himself at Olberman's feet in worship of his fairness, objectivity and obvious intellect.

patteeu
04-02-2008, 10:25 AM
I think he means this one?



You know, the key piece of news (if true) that had not ever been heard before.

What is it that you think that quote means? Do you think it means there was one specific call that we knew was going on but despite having good reason to think that it was a key call, we made a conscious decision not to listen to it? I don't think that's what it means at all.

I think it means that calls were most certainly made and that we could identify some characteristics of those calls, but because of the state of the law and the policies of our NSA at the time, those calls were not monitored. And because of that, a key call was missed that won't be missed under the new legal regime if Congress gets around to passing it.

A lot changed after 9/11 and one of those things was the aggressiveness of the NSA interpretation of it's charter to monitor "international calls". Pre-9/11, they took a safe position that no one could argue with by keeping their hands off of any call that touched any circuit inside the US. After 9/11 they took the more aggressive position that some have subsequently argued with by considering any call an "international call" as long as one endpoint that is in foreign territory and as long as one endpoint is associated with a high degree of confidence to a terrorist (for lack of a better term).

Iowanian
04-02-2008, 10:26 AM
You spin me round round round like a record.....

jAZ
04-02-2008, 11:41 AM
I think I need you to talk me through this one and explain to me what is damning about that quote.

Glen Greenwald does a decent job here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/29/mukasey/index.html

Even under the "old" FISA, no warrants are required where the targeted person is outside the U.S. (Afghanistan) and calls into the U.S. Thus, if it's really true, as Mukasey now claims, that the Bush administration knew about a Terrorist in an Afghan safe house making Terrorist-planning calls into the U.S., then they could have -- and should have -- eavesdropped on that call and didn't need a warrant to do so. So why didn't they? Mukasey's new claim that FISA's warrant requirements prevented discovery of the 9/11 attacks and caused the deaths of 3,000 Americans is disgusting and reckless, because it's all based on the lie that FISA required a warrant for targeting the "Afghan safe house." It just didn't. Nor does the House FISA bill require individual warrants when targeting a non-U.S. person outside the U.S.

Independently, even if there had been a warrant requirement for that call -- and there unquestionably was not -- why didn't the Bush administration obtain a FISA warrant to listen in on 9/11-planning calls from this "safe house"? Independently, why didn't the administration invoke FISA's 72-hour emergency warrantless window to listen in on those calls? If what Muskasey said this week is true -- and that's a big "if" -- his revelation about this Afghan call that the administration knew about but didn't intercept really amounts to one of the most potent indictments yet about the Bush administration's failure to detect the plot in action. Contrary to his false claims, FISA -- for multiple reasons -- did not prevent eavesdropping on that call.

Also from the San Francisco Chronicle...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/28/BA69VROE9.DTL

Before the 2001 terrorist attacks, he said, "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."

Mukasey did not specify the call to which he referred. He also did not explain why the government, if it knew of telephone calls from suspected foreign terrorists, hadn't sought a wiretapping warrant from a court established by Congress to authorize terrorist surveillance, or hadn't monitored all such calls without a warrant for 72 hours as allowed by law. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for more information.

jAZ
04-02-2008, 11:46 AM
I think it means that calls were most certainly made and that we could identify some characteristics of those calls, but because of the state of the law and the policies of our NSA at the time, those calls were not monitored. And because of that, a key call was missed that won't be missed under the new legal regime if Congress gets around to passing it.
That's certainly the case the Bush administration is trying to push in spite of the facts of the matter.

patteeu
04-02-2008, 04:15 PM
Glen Greenwald does a decent job here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/29/mukasey/index.html

Even under the "old" FISA, no warrants are required where the targeted person is outside the U.S. (Afghanistan) and calls into the U.S. Thus, if it's really true, as Mukasey now claims, that the Bush administration knew about a Terrorist in an Afghan safe house making Terrorist-planning calls into the U.S., then they could have -- and should have -- eavesdropped on that call and didn't need a warrant to do so. So why didn't they? Mukasey's new claim that FISA's warrant requirements prevented discovery of the 9/11 attacks and caused the deaths of 3,000 Americans is disgusting and reckless, because it's all based on the lie that FISA required a warrant for targeting the "Afghan safe house." It just didn't. Nor does the House FISA bill require individual warrants when targeting a non-U.S. person outside the U.S.

Independently, even if there had been a warrant requirement for that call -- and there unquestionably was not -- why didn't the Bush administration obtain a FISA warrant to listen in on 9/11-planning calls from this "safe house"? Independently, why didn't the administration invoke FISA's 72-hour emergency warrantless window to listen in on those calls? If what Muskasey said this week is true -- and that's a big "if" -- his revelation about this Afghan call that the administration knew about but didn't intercept really amounts to one of the most potent indictments yet about the Bush administration's failure to detect the plot in action. Contrary to his false claims, FISA -- for multiple reasons -- did not prevent eavesdropping on that call.

Also from the San Francisco Chronicle...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/28/BA69VROE9.DTL

Before the 2001 terrorist attacks, he said, "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."

Mukasey did not specify the call to which he referred. He also did not explain why the government, if it knew of telephone calls from suspected foreign terrorists, hadn't sought a wiretapping warrant from a court established by Congress to authorize terrorist surveillance, or hadn't monitored all such calls without a warrant for 72 hours as allowed by law. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for more information.


The volume of calls is one issue that seems to be ignored. You're assuming that there was only one call to either monitor or not monitor. What he's talking about is a large number of calls that fit that description with "the call" being one among them. I don't know what "facts of the matter" that you have in mind, but afaik, I'm not aware of them. I'm not even sure anyone can figure out precisely what Mukasey was saying, much less that there are some facts out there that make this a damning admission.

jAZ
04-02-2008, 04:38 PM
The volume of calls is one issue that seems to be ignored.
Hardly... it was one house. They didn't even try to use FISA, nor did they use the available FISA exception.

Mukasey did not ... explain why the government, if it knew of telephone calls from suspected foreign terrorists, hadn't sought a wiretapping warrant from a court established by Congress to authorize terrorist surveillance, or hadn't monitored all such calls without a warrant for 72 hours as allowed by law.

But you are right, it raises amazing questions that need to be addressed. And FTR, the facts I speak of are the FISA rules themselves which permit spying by court order (never sought) or no court order for 72 hours (never conducted).

Brock
04-02-2008, 05:18 PM
Hello, Mr. Clinton...we have Osama.....Hello?.....Mr. Clinton?....Hello?.....

alanm
04-02-2008, 06:49 PM
Glen Greenwald does a decent job here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/29/mukasey/index.html
Even under the "old" FISA, no warrants are required where the targeted person is outside the U.S. (Afghanistan) and calls into the U.S. Thus, if it's really true, as Mukasey now claims, that the Bush administration knew about a Terrorist in an Afghan safe house making Terrorist-planning calls into the U.S., then they could have -- and should have -- eavesdropped on that call and didn't need a warrant to do so. So why didn't they? Mukasey's new claim that FISA's warrant requirements prevented discovery of the 9/11 attacks and caused the deaths of 3,000 Americans is disgusting and reckless, because it's all based on the lie that FISA required a warrant for targeting the "Afghan safe house." It just didn't. Nor does the House FISA bill require individual warrants when targeting a non-U.S. person outside the U.S.

Independently, even if there had been a warrant requirement for that call -- and there unquestionably was not -- why didn't the Bush administration obtain a FISA warrant to listen in on 9/11-planning calls from this "safe house"? Independently, why didn't the administration invoke FISA's 72-hour emergency warrantless window to listen in on those calls? If what Muskasey said this week is true -- and that's a big "if" -- his revelation about this Afghan call that the administration knew about but didn't intercept really amounts to one of the most potent indictments yet about the Bush administration's failure to detect the plot in action. Contrary to his false claims, FISA -- for multiple reasons -- did not prevent eavesdropping on that call. Also from the San Francisco Chronicle...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/28/BA69VROE9.DTL
Before the 2001 terrorist attacks, he said, "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."

Mukasey did not specify the call to which he referred. He also did not explain why the government, if it knew of telephone calls from suspected foreign terrorists, hadn't sought a wiretapping warrant from a court established by Congress to authorize terrorist surveillance, or hadn't monitored all such calls without a warrant for 72 hours as allowed by law. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for more information.
You lost me at Salon and San Francisco Chronicle :shake:

patteeu
04-03-2008, 12:11 AM
Hardly... it was one house. They didn't even try to use FISA, nor did they use the available FISA exception.

Mukasey did not ... explain why the government, if it knew of telephone calls from suspected foreign terrorists, hadn't sought a wiretapping warrant from a court established by Congress to authorize terrorist surveillance, or hadn't monitored all such calls without a warrant for 72 hours as allowed by law.

But you are right, it raises amazing questions that need to be addressed. And FTR, the facts I speak of are the FISA rules themselves which permit spying by court order (never sought) or no court order for 72 hours (never conducted).

He's not saying what you think he's saying. This is much ado about nothing.

This is just more of the despicable hindsight-enhanced blame game that you guys started with the "connect the dots" BS just a few months after 9/11.

SBK
04-03-2008, 12:41 AM
It's so easy. A call is made from Afghanistan to the US. We do not know the context or contents of the call. We do not know who made the call or received the call.



Yes we do.

Call from Afghanistan direct to President Bush's private cell phone:
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb91/downtowndesmoinesblog/Terrorist_Captured.jpg
"Mr. President, dirka dirka, we have jihad planned against your country of infidels. We are going to dirka dirka, fly 2 planes that take off in NYC into the World Trade Centers and 2 from DC will fly jihad into the Capitol and Pentagon. This will take place, Allah willing, on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 before 10AM. Allah Akbar, dirka dirka."


President Bush:
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb91/downtowndesmoinesblog/BushSpeaks.jpg
"Allah is willing, and thanks for the warning, I'll head to Florida, read to some kids and pretend like we never had this conversation. Whatever you do, don't tell the next Attorney General....Wouldn't want the American people to find out!"

jAZ
04-03-2008, 09:06 AM
This is much ado about nothing.
Well if you say so. No need to get him to explain himself in more detail. patteeu has it from the man himself, I'm sure.

StcChief
04-03-2008, 09:08 AM
well that blows the inside job theory out the window.