Secret Service Failures on 9/11: A Call for Transparency

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

Are there still some questions I have? Yes. But those questions have nothing to do with the big picture.

You want to hold Condoleeza Rice responsible? Well, why not Admiral Stansfield Turner...under whose watch the CIA had its HUMINT programs emasculated? OR the bonehead lawyers in the Clinton Administration who decreed that our intelligence agencies could only talk to people overseas who were squeaky clean when it came to human rights? Maybe President George HW Bush for signing the orders that ended our 24-7-365 airborne alert forces?

WHO all do you want to blame?

Justice

1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

--------------------------------
Number five is what I want.

reply to post by maxella1

Number five is what I want.

Yes, but you have to go through the other 4 first. Its a process. Not a wish list.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

Number five is what I want.

Yes, but you have to go through the other 4 first. Its a process. Not a wish list.

I'm sorry for even asking but, as far as you are concerned justice have been served, no one should be held accountable for screw ups on and prior to 9/11? Nothing could of stopped the attack, so no one in government should have at least been fired?

reply to post by maxella1


And again, how many folks do you want to blame? No one person in the US Government had access to all the information that was needed to prevent the attack.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

And again, how many folks do you want to blame? No one person in the US Government had access to all the information that was needed to prevent the attack.

Why do you expect me to know how many folks are to blame? The only thing I can say is there are folks that did screw up and in a country of laws they need be be held accountable for the deadly mistakes they made, 3000 people are dead, and nobody even lost their jobs. I would have to agree with hooper, it's a process to get justice for the victims of this huge crime.
Do you disagree that in America people are held accountable for screwing up on a job, if people die as a result of that screw up? I don't understand what your point is. Sorry.

reply to post by maxella1

I'm sorry for even asking but, as far as you are concerned justice have been served, no one should be held accountable for screw ups on and prior to 9/11? Nothing could of stopped the attack, so no one in government should have at least been fired?

No, not really.

I am not aware of anyone having enough info to stop the specific attack. Besides that, what screw-ups exactly? Its nice to sit back now and claim that people should have been fired or brought to justice, but what did anyone specifically do to get fired, let alone prosecuted?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

I'm sorry for even asking but, as far as you are concerned justice have been served, no one should be held accountable for screw ups on and prior to 9/11? Nothing could of stopped the attack, so no one in government should have at least been fired?

No, not really.

I am not aware of anyone having enough info to stop the specific attack. Besides that, what screw-ups exactly? Its nice to sit back now and claim that people should have been fired or brought to justice, but what did anyone specifically do to get fired, let alone prosecuted?

Looks like this San Diego case agent dropped the ball

newsweek

The connection, just discovered by congressional investigators, has stunned some top counterterrorism officials and raised new concerns about the information-sharing among U.S. law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. The two hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, were hardly unknown to the intelligence community. The CIA was first alerted to them in January 2000, when the two Saudi nationals showed up at a Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. FBI officials have argued internally for months that if the CIA had more quickly passed along everything it knew about the two men, the bureau could have hunted them down more aggressively. But both agencies can share in the blame. Upon leaving Malaysia, Almihdhar and Alhazmi went to San Diego, where they took flight-school lessons. In September 2000, the two moved into the home of a Muslim man who had befriended them at the local Islamic Center. The landlord regularly prayed with them and even helped one open a bank account. He was also, sources tell NEWSWEEK, a "tested" undercover "asset" who had been working closely with the FBI office in San Diego on terrorism cases related to Hamas. A senior law-enforcement official told NEWSWEEK the informant never provided the bureau with the names of his two houseguests from Saudi Arabia. Nor does the FBI have any reason to believe the informant was concealing their identities. (He could not be reached for comment.) But the FBI concedes that a San Diego case agent appears to have been at least aware that Saudi visitors were renting rooms in the informant's house. (On one occasion, a source says, the case agent called up the informant and was told he couldn't talk because "Khalid"--a reference to Almihdhar--was in the room.) I. C. Smith, a former top FBI counterintelligence official, says the case agent should have been keeping closer tabs on who his informant was fraternizing with--if only to seek out the houseguests as possible informants. "They should have been asking, 'Who are these guys? What are they doing here?' This strikes me as a lack of investigative curiosity."

These F.A.A. officials, who ever they are screwed up a little

The commission found that F.A.A. officials were repeatedly warned about security lapses before Sept. 11 and, despite their increased concerns about a hijacking, allowed screening performance to decline significantly.

www.nytimes.com


There's more, I don’t feel like looking for them right now. If you don't want to look them up, ill post more later.

reply to post by maxella1


There are literally thousands of people who could share blame over 9/11. Do you want thousands of trials? Do you blame the Justice Dept lawyers who issued the guidelines that prevented agencies from sharing information....when the rules were designed to comply with current laws and to protect peoples human rights? Do you hold Bill Clinton responsible for NOT killing Osama when we literally had him in the crosshairs, because in doing so, we would kill women and children?

HOW many people do you want to blame? Because it isn't one or two or even fifty people that failed us.

When Khalid Shiekh Mohammed and his minions are strapped to the gurney and executed....justice will be served. The hijackers and Osama will be in Hell to welcome them.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

There are literally thousands of people who could share blame over 9/11. Do you want thousands of trials? Do you blame the Justice Dept lawyers who issued the guidelines that prevented agencies from sharing information....when the rules were designed to comply with current laws and to protect peoples human rights? Do you hold Bill Clinton responsible for NOT killing Osama when we literally had him in the crosshairs, because in doing so, we would kill women and children?

HOW many people do you want to blame? Because it isn't one or two or even fifty people that failed us.

Who cares how many people could be blamed? 3000 People are DEAD !!!

I just saw a news report about a barge that ran over Philadelphia tourist boat killing two people and the guy Who messed up went to jail.

First we would need to do a real investigation to know exactly how many people are to blame, and then let the courts decide how to deal with these people. If there will be as many people as you say, then be it !
3000 innocent people were murdered, thousands of people were killed in wars, a bunch of first responders are dying. Is that not enough reasons for you?

I just don’t understand what the f*** is wrong with people today, did you forget what America was supposed to be?

No one is above the law in America remember? If people loose their lives because somebody fell a sleep at the controls, there must be some kind of consequences.
According to the 9/11 commission report every agency failed for whatever reason, and yet no one is responsible?

reply to post by maxella1


How do you hold someone accountable, when their actions were made in good faith? There is a LONG trail of failures/bad decisions/mistakes over about forty YEARS that led to 9/11. And none of it, was malicious.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

How do you hold someone accountable, when their actions were made in good faith? There is a LONG trail of failures/bad decisions/mistakes over about forty YEARS that led to 9/11. And none of it, was malicious.

What good faith are you talking about?
They failed to do their job, in the world where I live people get fired and if their negligence cause someone to lose their life they go trough the legal process, you know (lawyers, judge, jury), that type of things.

In the case of 9/11 not only no one lost their jobs but some got promotions. Whats wrong with you man ? This is common sense you screw up, you suffer the consequences.

Oh boy we're in trouble...

reply to post by maxella1


So, the lawyer that says the CIA cannot share information with the FBI about the hijackers because it was obtained in ways that were illegal under US law, should be tried for negligence? Every Senator, Congressman and President who signed off on emasculating the US' Continental Air Defense.....so the money could be spent on social programs, should be tried for negligence? Or just the poor dumb schlep that didn't pass on information, because he did not want to be accused of profiling, should be tried?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

So, the lawyer that says the CIA cannot share information with the FBI about the hijackers because it was obtained in ways that were illegal under US law, should be tried for negligence? Every Senator, Congressman and President who signed off on emasculating the US' Continental Air Defense.....so the money could be spent on social programs, should be tried for negligence? Or just the poor dumb schlep that didn't pass on information, because he did not want to be accused of profiling, should be tried?

American Airlines knew that flight 11 was hijacked but didn’t call the FAA for something like 20 minutes.

The FAA withheld records that the commission requested.

The FBI agent who was supposed to be on top of his informant knew that two people moved in with him but didn’t bother to run a background check to see who they are.

Flight school reported suspicious people taking lessons, no one took it seriously.

I read about things that was going on prior to 9/11 and on 9/11 that I couldn’t believe (not conspiracy theories) just very simple screw ups by a bunch of people who could of stopped the attacks but didn’t.

Many people dropped the ball on and before 9/11 and they should have been fired immediately, but instead they were destroying documents and getting promotions.

I really don’t understand why it is so hard for you to understand. 9/11 commission was a cover up of all the screw ups, CIA said that, not a conspiracy theorist.

Maybe I will post them with links when I'll feel like it. You can find all that by searching yourself.

The way government handled the whole thing is why people think they had something to do with it. It's very simple really according to Richard Clarke Condoleezza Rice was told repeatedly about imminent attack, but did nothing about it. So why would Bush promote her to the State Department in the second term?
And the executive director of the commission Philip Zelikow got a new job working for her.


Hmmm....Nothing seems odd to you ?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

So, the lawyer that says the CIA cannot share information with the FBI about the hijackers because it was obtained in ways that were illegal under US law, should be tried for negligence? Every Senator, Congressman and President who signed off on emasculating the US' Continental Air Defense.....so the money could be spent on social programs, should be tried for negligence? Or just the poor dumb schlep that didn't pass on information, because he did not want to be accused of profiling, should be tried?

Negligence is negligence regardless who it is. People are dead because of their negligence. Period.
You don’t reward negligence.

reply to post by maxella1


You dont want justice, you just want someone's hide mounted over the fireplace. And in that, it places you in the company of the congressmen/senators who created a bunch of new agencies post 9/11, that havent made us safer.....but it sure has given them the CYA item they needed.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

You dont want justice, you just want someone's hide mounted over the fireplace. And in that, it places you in the company of the congressmen/senators who created a bunch of new agencies post 9/11, that havent made us safer.....but it sure has given them the CYA item they needed.

Whatever that means.

They have been getting away with all their crimes for decades, and it's because of people with your mentality.
Lets look forward is what got us into this sh** in the first place.

A crime is a crime I don't care who it is.
9/11 is unforgivable, and if people don’t wake up it's going to happen again.

reply to post by maxella1


No, it's people like you who get so caught up in a "we gotta blame SOMEONE" mentality that prevents us from admitting that a determined adversary can hurt us dearly. It also prevents us from making the changes necessary.

Post Pearl Harbor, we hung the blame for that attack on Walter Short and Husband Kimmel, both were fine officers, who made decisions on the best information they had, and paid dearly for it. It only took fifty years for us to admit that they HAD done their jobs as well as circumstances and higher authority allowed.


What you want to do, is the same thing.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

No, it's people like you who get so caught up in a "we gotta blame SOMEONE" mentality that prevents us from admitting that a determined adversary can hurt us dearly. It also prevents us from making the changes necessary.

Post Pearl Harbor, we hung the blame for that attack on Walter Short and Husband Kimmel, both were fine officers, who made decisions on the best information they had, and paid dearly for it. It only took fifty years for us to admit that they HAD done their jobs as well as circumstances and higher authority allowed.


What you want to do, is the same thing.

I still don't understand what your position is.
Are you saying that not a single person should be blamed for negligence with resulted in the loss of 3000 civilian lives because there is just too many people who could be blamed? Or what are you really saying ? Please express your opinion as clear as possible if you don't mind.

reply to post by maxella1

People are dead because of their negligence.

No. When the mechanic forgets to tighten the lug nuts after he puts the tire back on and the wheel falls off and the driver gets killed - that's negligence.

What happened on 9/11 was murder. You blame the murderers.