So, Bush says domestic warrantless surveillance will stop hijackings

Le Jacquelope

Loves Spam
Joined
Apr 9, 2003
Posts
76,445
So, Bush says surveillance stopped a West Coast 9/11 from happening.

Wait a minute.

After 9/11 itself, it's generally known around the world that nobody is ever going to be able to hijack an American plane. It ain't gonna happen. The passengers won't let it happen.

Either the chimp is swinging from trees again or he's lying.


Police state fans, where are you??



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060210...8oFwpIGw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Bush: U.S. Surveillance Helped Stop Attack

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer 38 minutes ago

Under fire for eavesdropping on Americans, President Bush said Thursday that spy work stretching from the U.S. to Asia helped thwart terrorists plotting to use shoe bombs to hijack an airliner and crash it into the tallest skyscraper on the West Coast.

"It took the combined efforts of several countries to break up this plot," Bush said. "By working together we stopped a catastrophic attack on our homeland."

Some information about the foiled attack was disclosed last year, but Bush offered more details to highlight international cooperation in fighting terrorists. He did not say whether information about the West Coast plot was collected by his administration's program to monitor — without court warrants — some calls and e-mails between people overseas and in the U.S. when links to terrorism are suspected.

The White House said that issue was not the point of the speech, but the president and his advisers have been vigorously defending the legality of the program, which has been questioned by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

After weeks of insisting that divulging details of the monitoring program would hinder intelligence gathering, the White House relented Wednesday and began briefing some additional lawmakers.

Meanwhile, the president's monthlong campaign to convince Americans the government's eavesdropping program is essential to the war on terrorism appears to be making an impact.

In a new AP-Ipsos poll, 48 percent now support wiretapping without a warrant in cases of suspected communications with terrorists, up from 42 percent last month. Half say the administration should have to get a warrant, down from 56 percent. Men in particular have come around to Bush's view over the last month, the poll suggested.

On Capitol Hill Thursday, four Senate Republican holdouts reached agreement with the White House on minor changes in the Patriot Act, hoping to clear the way for renewal of anti-terror legislation that Bush says is essential in the fight against terrorists.

In his speech, at the National Guard Memorial Building, Bush said Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the reputed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, began planning the West Coast operation in October 2001. One of Mohammed's key planners was a man known as Hambali, the alleged operations chief of the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, which is affiliated with al-Qaida.

"Rather than use Arab hijackers as he had on Sept. 11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed sought out young men from Southeast Asia — whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion," Bush said.

In Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa complained he first learned of Bush's remarks while watching TV.

"I'm amazed that the president would make this on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels," said the mayor, a Democrat.

Bush press secretary Scott McClellan said that the White House did reach out before the speech to officials in California and that there was appreciation for the notification.

As the plot was described, the hijackers were to use shoe bombs to blow open the cockpit door of a commercial jetliner, take control of the plane and crash it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, a 73-story building since renamed the US Bank Tower. In his remarks, Bush inadvertently referred to the site as "Liberty Tower."

The president said the plot was derailed when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al-Qaida operative. Bush did not name the country or the operative.

Frances Fragos Townsend, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, said Mohammed, working with Hambali in Asia, recruited four members of the terrorist cell and trained its leader in how to use shoe bombs.

Townsend said it was not clear whether there was any connection between the West Coast plot and shoe bomber Richard Reid, who tried to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight in December 2001. After that, the Transportation Security Administration began asking passengers to take off their shoes for inspection.

The Sept. 11 attacks originally were planned to include both the East and West coasts. "It was bin Laden who decided that it should just focus on the East Coast, and that the West Coast should be held in abeyance ... as a follow-on attack," Townsend said. "It's our understanding now that it was too difficult to get enough operatives for both the East and West Coast plots at the same time."

She said all four of the West Coast planners went to Afghanistan in October 2001 and met with Osama bin Laden.

Townsend said all four members of the cell have been apprehended. She declined to disclose their names or say where they were being held. She also would not identify the two South Asia and two Southeast Asian nations that helped foil the attack.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Bush's speech failed to lay out a comprehensive strategy to fight terrorists.

"As is too often the case with this president, the rhetoric does not match the reality," Reid said. "The fact is this White House has committed a series of national security mistakes that have made America less secure."
 
LovingTongue said:
After 9/11 itself, it's generally known around the world that nobody is ever going to be able to hijack an American plane. It ain't gonna happen. The passengers won't let it happen.

I think it's absurd to make such a statement.
 
LovingTongue said:
After 9/11 itself, it's generally known around the world that nobody is ever going to be able to hijack an American plane. It ain't gonna happen. The passengers won't let it happen.

3 years ago I would have believed that.
 
Ham Murabi said:
I think it's absurd to make such a statement.

I think it's generally true, but asinine to formulate national security policy on the assumption. But back in October 2001, the possibility was greater because A-the cockpit doors were not yet hardened against intrusion and B-pilots were not yet armed.
 
Gringao said:
I think it's generally true, but asinine to formulate national security policy on the assumption. But back in October 2001, the possibility was greater because A-the cockpit doors were not yet hardened against intrusion and B-pilots were not yet armed.
Yeah, and besides, passengers subdue 'crazies' out-of-natural-survival-instinct all-the-time... A 'police state' wouldn't allow civilian air-travel. Railroad cars won't de-pressurize when a cop fires a gun... They can't prove Bush is slush-funding Amtrak.
 
Gringao said:
I think it's generally true, but asinine to formulate national security policy on the assumption. But back in October 2001, the possibility was greater because A-the cockpit doors were not yet hardened against intrusion and B-pilots were not yet armed.

It all depends on your definition of "hijacking." It doesn't take much of an imagination to think that a plane could be hijacked without the passengers knowing it. Nor is there any rule that a plane that is hijacked is going to be flown into a building.
 
Ham Murabi said:
It all depends on your definition of "hijacking." It doesn't take much of an imagination to think that a plane could be hijacked without the passengers knowing it. Nor is there any rule that a plane that is hijacked is going to be flown into a building.

Hijacking a plane was easier before they hardened the cockpit doors and armed the pilots. The doors and guns give the passengers the time to react now. That wasn't the case in 10/01
 
Gringao said:
Hijacking a plane was easier before they hardened the cockpit doors and armed the pilots. The doors and guns give the passengers the time to react now. That wasn't the case in 10/01

Not disagreeing at all.
 
Ham Murabi said:
I think it's absurd to make such a statement.
Well, if you're on the plane, I guess it could get hijacked. You'd sit there and whimper. Me, I'd have the hijacker's nuts petrified as dice by the time he could get a bead on me with his gun.

You see, you wuss ass neo cons like to talk big but when it comes time to fight, you're caught sitting on your asses. When we liberals get pissed, it's because our country really is under attack, and shit really does happen. Ask the Japanese what happened when they nailed us on FD "a chicken in every pot" R's watch, lol! Or better yet ask the Commies what happened when they put nuclear missiles under JF "civil rights" K's nose.

Liberals don't start shit with the world, but they have a history of roundly kickinga tyrant's ass when they threaten America.

You neo cons? All you do is ship arms to Iran to aid the Contras hahahahah and you couldn't even win at that hahahahah!!!!
 
LadyFunkenstein said:
"Information" sure does get on the fast track of declassification if it suits a purpose.
Like Cheany authorizing the outing of a CIA operative.
 
Gringao said:
Hijacking a plane was easier before they hardened the cockpit doors and armed the pilots. The doors and guns give the passengers the time to react now. That wasn't the case in 10/01
Jesus Christ. All you talk about are hardened doors and pilots with guns.

What about the passengers?!

I don't know what cowardly corner of the universe you're from, but after 9/11 there's no way in fuck anyone on my block is going to sit there and whimper while someone threatens the plane with guns. They're going to get rushed.

I'm beginning to wonder about what I said now... your cowardice is shaking my confidence.

Every man is at least somewhat responsible for his own self-defense.
 
Toilette said:
Yeah, and besides, passengers subdue 'crazies' out-of-natural-survival-instinct all-the-time... .
You may have a point there.
The 9/11 passengers had no idea that the terrorists were going to bang a building, I'm sure their 1st thoughts were a flight to Cuba (or wherever).

After 9/11, the potential terrorists may face the wrath of the passengers, knowing they were going to die either way.
 
I think passengers would most likely stop a 9/11 type attack again. These terroists can be creative..perhaps they can find a way to incapacitate the passengers or maybe they can find their way onto a FedEx plane..no passengers there. Enough money and people they can buy half the tickets on the plane or even 90% +. Ya it may sound far fetched but a 9/11 style attack sounded far fetched 5 years ago.
 
LovingTongue said:
Jesus Christ. All you talk about are hardened doors and pilots with guns.

What about the passengers?!

I don't know what cowardly corner of the universe you're from, but after 9/11 there's no way in fuck anyone on my block is going to sit there and whimper while someone threatens the plane with guns. They're going to get rushed.

I'm beginning to wonder about what I said now... your cowardice is shaking my confidence.

Every man is at least somewhat responsible for his own self-defense.

Jesus, if you were any stupider there'd be a bounty on your ass.

Of course the passengers will intervene in a post-9/11 world. But to be able to intervene prior to the would-be hijackers gaining control of the plane they need time. With the flimsy cockpit doors of the past, terrorists could enter the control area of the ship in a matter of seconds, long before anyone could mount a counterattack. Once there, they could either kill or overwhelm the flight crew and either crash or assume control. At that point, passengers would have the option of dying at a time of either their or the terrorists choosing.

With hardened doors and firearms in the cockpit, the chances of terrorists getting into and commandeering the ship are virtually nil since they will require not only several minutes to enter the cockpit, but will be facing armed resistance once they get there. By then, passengers and crew will surely have mounted an attack, likely ending the whole operation.

In short, what happened on 9/11 was still a real threat as of October 2001. It no longer is today.
 
garbage can said:
You may have a point there.
The 9/11 passengers had no idea that the terrorists were going to bang a building, I'm sure their 1st thoughts were a flight to Cuba (or wherever).

After 9/11, the potential terrorists may face the wrath of the passengers, knowing they were going to die either way.

What the hardened doors and armed pilots give the airborne militia (aka, "the passengers") is time to incapacitate the enemy and live, rather than die foiling the terror plotters.
 
Gringao said:
Jesus, if you were any stupider there'd be a bounty on your ass.

Of course the passengers will intervene in a post-9/11 world. But to be able to intervene prior to the would-be hijackers gaining control of the plane they need time. With the flimsy cockpit doors of the past, terrorists could enter the control area of the ship in a matter of seconds, long before anyone could mount a counterattack. Once there, they could either kill or overwhelm the flight crew and either crash or assume control. At that point, passengers would have the option of dying at a time of either their or the terrorists choosing.

With hardened doors and firearms in the cockpit, the chances of terrorists getting into and commandeering the ship are virtually nil since they will require not only several minutes to enter the cockpit, but will be facing armed resistance once they get there. By then, passengers and crew will surely have mounted an attack, likely ending the whole operation.

In short, what happened on 9/11 was still a real threat as of October 2001. It no longer is today.
The topic is, do we need surveillance on American citizens, without a warrant, to prevent another plane from flying into a tower? Your reading comprehension problem is preventing you from grasping that. The only thing you're doing is proving my point that the answer to the question is NO.

If you were any stupider your skull would cave in.
 
LovingTongue said:
The topic is, do we need surveillance on American citizens, without a warrant, to prevent another plane from flying into a tower? Your reading comprehension problem is preventing you from grasping that. The only thing you're doing is proving my point that the answer to the question is NO.

If you were any stupider your skull would cave in.

Signal intelligence is part of war. Period.

But LT, I urge you to make getting warrants to intercept enemy signals during wartime a major campaign issue. Please write Howie Dean and demand it.
 
Gringao said:
Signal intelligence is part of war. Period.

But LT, I urge you to make getting warrants to intercept enemy signals during wartime a major campaign issue. Please write Howie Dean and demand it.
So you feel it's Constitutional to wiretap American citizens without a warrant to win an undeclared war-without-end?

Terrorists are now primarily using encrypted communications on the Internet, you stupid bitch. What do you suppose we do? Have 24/7 monitoring of all communications?

Like I said, you support a fucking police state. Some fucking Libertarian you are.
 
LovingTongue said:
So you feel it's Constitutional to wiretap American citizens without a warrant to win an undeclared war-without-end?

Terrorists are now primarily using encrypted communications on the Internet, you stupid bitch. What do you suppose we do? Have 24/7 monitoring of all communications?

Like I said, you support a fucking police state. Some fucking Libertarian you are.

They weren't wiretapping Americans, they were wiretapping suspected al-Qaeda members in foreign nations that were communicating with people inside the US (not necessarily Americans).

FYI, Echelon is a 24/7 global electronic communications monitoring system. It's been around for some time now.
 
Gringao said:
They weren't wiretapping Americans, they were wiretapping suspected al-Qaeda members in foreign nations that were communicating with people inside the US (not necessarily Americans).
You're half right about that. Wow, that's a new high score for you!

FYI, Echelon is a 24/7 global electronic communications monitoring system. It's been around for some time now.
ECHELON is also unconstitutional. Especially the part where it, too, monitors Americans without a warrant (with the help of their UK counterpart).
 
LovingTongue said:
You're half right about that. Wow, that's a new high score for you!

ECHELON is also unconstitutional. Especially the part where it, too, monitors Americans without a warrant (with the help of their UK counterpart).

I'm right about all of it, bright boy. Don't blame me if you don't understand Article II powers.
 
Gringao said:
I'm right about all of it, bright boy. Don't blame me if you don't understand Article II powers.
Gringao, we've been over this before. Your understanding of the Constitution is akin to Gomer Pyle's understanding of elite combat tactics.
 
LovingTongue said:
Gringao, we've been over this before. Your understanding of the Constitution is akin to Gomer Pyle's understanding of elite combat tactics.

please be friendly to him, he is raising funds for his master mr. b.

I can imagine that he joined a republican summer-camp, where he learned all wonderful aspects of US without democrazy. :)
 
Back
Top