a dilemna...

[bishop]

article

With the admitted al Qaeda conspirator facing a death penalty trial early next year, the judge framed a key question in a recent closed-door hearing: Even if Moussaoui had told the FBI everything that he knew, would that have enabled the government to avert the 2001 terrorist strikes? The question by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema was released this week in a transcript from a hearing last month. Federal prosecutors say Moussaoui's failure to tell the FBI what he knew resulted in 3,000 deaths. When he was in custody before the attacks, Moussaoui denied being a member of a terrorist organization and denied that he was taking pilot training to kill Americans. Moussaoui told the FBI he was training as a pilot purely for his personal enjoyment and that after completing his training, he intended to visit New York City and Washington as a tourist. In April, Moussaoui pleaded guilty to conspiring with the September 11 hijackers to kill Americans and declared that Osama bin Laden had personally chosen him to fly a plane into the White House in a later attack. The upcoming penalty phase has Moussaoui's lawyers poring through material from past investigations for evidence of what the government knew before September 11. For example, the month before the terrorist strikes, CIA Director George Tenet was briefed about Moussaoui's arrest in Minnesota. "Your honor ... he was given a slide show," attorney Edward MacMahon said of Tenet. "In August of 2001, Tenet was given a presentation called 'Islamic Extremist' or 'Islamic Fundamentalist Learns to Fly."' According to the newly released transcript of an October 12 hearing, MacMahon also told the judge that inside the U.S. government before September 11, "we know that there were other requests for information ... to people outside of the normal chain ... about Moussaoui" and two suspected terrorist operatives among the 19 September 11 hijackers -- Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. The CIA failed to put al-Mihdar and al-Hazmi on government watch lists or to let the FBI know that the future September 11 hijackers had entered the United States in early 2000. "We need to know almost frozen in time what was known by the government before the planes hit the World Trade Center," MacMahon told the judge.

quite a dilemna here.. the government clearly needs to answer some big time questions here if it expects to convict moussaoui.. but if it answers those questions, it would mean that it DID know that 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing about it. or, if the government didn't know anything (which doesn't exactly seem to be the case), then it might have to risk having moussaoui acquitted.

[jt1012751]

Well I think it sounds like they knew what was going to happen. They just did not know enough to prevent it from happening.

[bishop]

the french warned us about moussaoui several days before 9/11.. this is accepted as fact. and, we had him imprisoned since august 17, 2001.. and the brits specifically warned about plane hijackings.

it that was the case, then why was there no heightened sense of security? the fbi never investigated moussaoui, even when the french said he was involved in a terrorist plot. they've given lots of excuses, and if you know much about those excuses, they're pretty weak (they amount to laziness).

[jt1012751]

Yeh, the french warned us. Is our government really intrested in what the french have to say? I would not put it past them to ignore the french 100%. It also takes more than "several days" to highten security everywhere in the US. As for the plane hijackings, well, I don't see how that ever could have happened anyway. How does a person come onto the plane and hijack it?, they have to have a gun in the cockpit or somthing.

The US has given some very weak excuses, but now that they have started "investigating" prisoners you would probably just be complaing about how we tortured Moussaoui instead of about how we did nothing to stop the bombings. Not that I agree with the US not doing anything about it. They should also give us more respect and come up with better lies even if they did nothing.

[Scribbler1]

I suspect what will actually be allowed to become public (National security, don'tcha know.) will be handled the same as before. Human error, failure to "connect the dots" and "flawed intel" will be the catchphrases you will hear on the cable news outlets, ad nauseum.

No one will get the blame and no one will take it. The little we do find out will still fall within "plausible deniability" and we will find out just enough to keep forums like this one busy.

[Zeebadee]

There's absolutely no way that Moussaoui will ever be acquitted. There are any number of agents and government officials that believe, as some in this forum do, that the ends justify the means, and will get on the stand and swear under oath whatever needs to be said to convict him. After all, there are still those that excuse presidential perjury because they don't think the subject of his lies was serious. Well, when we condone perjury by our highest elected official, who has sworn to uphold the laws of the country, why shouldn't we condone it by all?? IMO, situational ethics is a serious problem in America. When Right and Wrong is determined by the consequences of the situation and not by Truth, we are on the road to disaster. Moussaoui, indeed the entire terrorist threat, doesn't even come close to the danger that we face from the citizenry accepting the lies and deceit emanating from the current administration simply because they believe it's in our best interests. It's very important to the current cabal that Moussaoui be found guilty, therefore, the issue simply isn't in doubt at all.

[bishop]

while i don't disagree with you two (about the end result), i think that a decent amount of dirt will be learned in this trial.. from the article:

According to the newly released transcript of an October 12 hearing, MacMahon also told the judge that inside the U.S. government before September 11, "we know that there were other requests for information ... to people outside of the normal chain ... about Moussaoui" and two suspected terrorist operatives among the 19 September 11 hijackers -- Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.

it would be good to know who these people were who decided to ignore the claims.. personally, i'd like to know, and i'd like to see them fired.

[Jack]

Is a dilemna similar to a dilemma? :eek:

(I'm sorry...sometimes I can't help myself...it's just another way I can be thought of as anal... )

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Isherwood Is a dilemna similar to a dilemma? :eek: (I'm sorry...sometimes I can't help myself...it's just another way I can be thought of as anal... )

Would you attempt to destroy a perfectly reasonable conversation with some tight-assed barb about somebody's spelling?

I sher wood!

Critique the grammar? You get the pun.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Zeebadee There's absolutely no way that Moussaoui will ever be acquitted. There are any number of agents and government officials that believe, as some in this forum do, that the ends justify the means, and will get on the stand and swear under oath whatever needs to be said to convict him. After all, there are still those that excuse presidential perjury because they don't think the subject of his lies was serious. Well, when we condone perjury by our highest elected official, who has sworn to uphold the laws of the country, why shouldn't we condone it by all?? IMO, situational ethics is a serious problem in America. When Right and Wrong is determined by the consequences of the situation and not by Truth, we are on the road to disaster. Moussaoui, indeed the entire terrorist threat, doesn't even come close to the danger that we face from the citizenry accepting the lies and deceit emanating from the current administration simply because they believe it's in our best interests. It's very important to the current cabal that Moussaoui be found guilty, therefore, the issue simply isn't in doubt at all.

I agree, and I should have been more clear. I don't think any AMERICAN will suffer anything over this. Bush and Blofeld will be blameless regardless of whether they have any culpability or not.
I don't see why Moussaoui shouldn't be found guilty of SOMETHING, as that takes the heat off the government. But I still believe we will actually learn next to nothing, and much of that will likely be false.

(I'm more cynical than usual today.)

[CoffeeSaint]

Actually ON topic, I am of the mind that Moussaoui will be convicted; it's too good an opportunity for P.R. And sadly, Bishop, I'd say the opportunity for real information on what was known will depend entirely on how dedicated the attorneys/judges are to finding out that information. If an FBI/CIA agent's sworn word is enough, without giving details -- as Scribbler said, to protect Nat. Sec. -- then nothing will come out.

But he will be convicted. Even in your article, the evidence is clear that he is a terrorist fanatic that should be shot -- he "declared" that Osama ordered him to fly a plane into the White House. Come on! How about some real journalistic objectivity? Why don't they also print that he "declared" he is innocent (I'm sure he said that at least once.)?

[Jack]

situational ethics is a serious problem in America

Even if one is not quite willing to agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment, situational ethics still would not be appropriate in this situation.

The roles of the president and those under him are delineated by law and are not open to interpretation a whole lot. We should have enough safeguards in place to keep him from declaring himself King.

What concerns me even more are those in society who say they respect the office of the president and turn a blind eye to the actions of the men holding those elected positions.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Isherwood The roles of the president and those under him are delineated by law and are not open to interpretation a whole lot.

Then why was clinton not convicted when he was demonstrably guilty of perjury, and why are there those that still insist his crime was merely a simple illicit sex act, completely ignoring the issue of lying under oath??

[oranged]

I don't understand why he would have pleaded guilty.

[Jack]

Then why was clinton not convicted when he was demonstrably guilty of perjury, and why are there those that still insist his crime was merely a simple illicit sex act, completely ignoring the issue of lying under oath??

Perhaps because the rules governing the actions of the president are more concerned with those actions affecting the country as a whole than those defining his character. And Clinton's actions have been exposed. It's just that many Americans don't consider his transgressions as severe as Bush's.

Wilson lied for years to the press and the public over his disability. Americans seem to have decided that it wasn't something worth destroying his legacy over. History is fickle. Not all transgressions are treated alike.

[Scribbler1]

You mean Franklin Roosevelt lied about his polio?

[Son of Belial]

Quote by: Isherwood it's just another way I can be thought of as anal... )

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Isherwood Perhaps because the rules governing the actions of the president are more concerned with those actions affecting the country as a whole than those defining his character. And Clinton's actions have been exposed. It's just that many Americans don't consider his transgressions as severe as Bush's. Wilson lied for years to the press and the public over his disability. Americans seem to have decided that it wasn't something worth destroying his legacy over. History is fickle. Not all transgressions are treated alike.

Sorry, but I believe that the president's character does indeed affect the country. And when a sizeable number of citizens are willing to accept excuses for illegal and immoral behavior because those transgressions don't seem too severe, I think we are in trouble. clinton proved himself unfit for office, no less than Bush has done. In a perfect world, these two dirtbags would be cellmates.

[Son of Belial]

If I worked at McDonalds and got a blowjob on work time, I'd get fired. That's all I have to say.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Son of Belial If I worked at McDonalds and got a blowjob on work time, I'd get fired. That's all I have to say.

Well damn...That's FOOD you're messing with. Ack!