Start A Petition

Why Doesn't the 9/11 Commission Know About Mukasey's 9/11 Story?

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: 9/11, FISA, Mukasey )

- 4090 days ago -
Did the attorney general just reveal a critical, previously unknown fact about the 9/11 attack, or did he lie about it to demand new spying powers?


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Past Member (0)
Friday April 4, 2008, 6:36 am

Joycey B (750)
Friday April 4, 2008, 7:00 am
Noted. Thanks Mark.

Past Member (0)
Friday April 4, 2008, 10:20 pm
Incredible. Or rather, it should be.

Peace Monger (185)
Saturday April 5, 2008, 7:00 am
Mukasey's comments illustrate the endless exploitation of the 9/11 attacks to demand ever-expanding power to know more and more about the activities of U.S. citizens inside the U.S., and the deceitful practice of blaming what were intelligence failures on civil liberties, safeguards and oversight, and basic Constitutional guarantees.
But wait! It gets better...
Even the DOJ's own response makes clear how deceitful Mukasey's speech was. The DOJ references a passage in the Mukasey/McConnell letter where they blame restrictions imposed not by FISA, but supposedly by Executive Order 12333, which is an order issued in 1981 by Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order has nothing to do with FISA, and could have been amended or rescinded at any time by George Bush (and indeed, subsequent to 9/11, it was twice amended by Bush).

The administration has no interest in improving its intelligence-gathering capabilities, its counter-terrorism strategies, or its ability to identify valuable information. Its only interest is to obtain greater and greater domestic spying powers with fewer and fewer oversights -- based on the premise that as long as they know Everything, we'll all be safe. Its appetite for this is insatiable.

If anything, allowing the Government to collect greater and greater amounts of surveillance data, with fewer and fewer safeguards, results in far less effective counter-terrorism efforts. As both Martin and Rep. Rush Holt have continuously pointed out, allowing the intelligence community to suck up whatever they want about Americans in some sort of blunderbuss vacuum cleaner effect, without safeguards, is far less likely to lead to the detection of actual threats than is focused, narrow, and managed intelligence-gathering activities. More safeguards and restrictions lead to better surveillance.

Mukasey is yet another Bush official, yet again, exploiting those attacks to demand more unchecked government power.
hmmmm...I wonder how many Americans will see/hear Mukasey's comments; will this be swept under the rug or, will Americans finally wake up to the truth?

Barry S (118)
Saturday April 5, 2008, 9:32 pm
noted. Thanks Mark

Sandra M Z (114)
Wednesday April 16, 2008, 11:29 am
Agree w/Sara. Noted, thanks Mark.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.