In Search of Common Ground: A Conversation with Ron Wieck

[alienentity]

I see that both Bush and Cheney have recounted the conversations, most recently in Bush's memoir, and that their accounts differ in some details.

This is not really surprising given that these are not transcripts of actual conversations but instead recollections. Given human memory and ego all bets are off...
Bush says he called Cheney, but Cheney says he called Bush...
Cheney's statement to Newsweek was ' “I recommended to the President that we authorize . . . I said, ‘We’ve got to give the pilots rules of engagement, and I recommend we authorize them to shoot.’ We talked about it briefly, and he said, ‘OK, I’ll sign up to that.’ He made the decision.'
Bush recalled something similar 'he military had dispatched Combat Air Patrols—teams of fighter aircraft assigned to intercept unresponsive airplanes—over Washington and New York. . . . We needed to clarify the rules of engagement. I told Dick that our pilots should contact suspicious planes and try to get them to land peacefully. If that failed, they had my authority to shoot them down.”'

According to Richard Clarke, the shoot down authorization came between 9:45 and 9:56, after Bush and Cheney had spoken on a secure phone in a tunnel between the White House and PEOC. There are numerous references to problems with the phones during that period, so it's possible that several attempts were made before the calls were successfully made - this could account for Cheney recalling that he called Bush rather than the other way around.
I see nothing suspicious here, the general timeline fits with both Bush's flight on Airforce One and Cheney's evacuation to PEOC.
The 9/11 Commission puts the time for the order at 10:18am, which is certainly after Cheney arrived at PEOC and after the phone calls between Bush and Cheney. It cannot be established by a third party exactly what Bush and Cheney discussed during the phone calls, but the shoot down order clearly was relayed by Cheney AFTER the phone call.
Logic would indicate that they must have discussed the shoot down order then sometime between 9:30am and 10:00 am.
The only way one could deny that Bush gave the order is if one could prove that Bush didn't talk to Cheney during that time - and that is not what the evidence shows. Since we know they spoke, we also know they might have discussed the shoot down, as they both claim. (Airforce One took off around 9:55am and Bush claims he didn't talk to Cheney until after he was in the air - I don't know if that makes a lot of difference to the big picture, but since Cheney was in PEOC by about 9:58 we have a rough idea, and it was too late to do anything about United 93 which crashed into a field at about 10:03am)

I think we have no choice but to accept that part of the Bush/Cheney account, as we cannot prove it is incorrect. In general it seems consistent with almost everything else (Mineta's timeline being one exception).
ETA Obviously Cheney's claim that Bush authorized the shootdown 'within minutes' of the second plane impact, while vague, is not necessarily technically incorrect - it depends on how many minutes he was referring to. They did speak while Bush was still at Booker Elementary, before Bush gave a statement at 9:29am, which is less than 30 minutes from the crash of flight 175. I suppose that Cheney may have confused the phone calls as well; certainly in the confusion of the day I can accept his account as factual - allowing for the vagaries of human memory.

Main source for my info:
http://www.historycommons.org/timeli...e_911_timeline

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

...
In working my brain through the decision scenario some years back I identified another aspect which which I don't think has emerged here so far. Given the base "risk management" decision which has two main factors viz:
1) Deaths if we don't shoot down which would be lives saved if we do VERSUS deaths if we do shoot down. Those on the plane don't count - they lose either way BUT think of the political consequences from their relatives in the event of a shoot-down decision.

I disagree. Those on the plane do count, because there is a chance larger than zero that they take back the plane and manage to land it with at least some lives saved, or maybe even the hijacker has a change of heart.

Originally Posted by ozeco41

...
That other aspect is that the deaths avoided would have to be several times the ones sacrificed. And don't forget that those "deaths avoided" if the shoot down path is taken become merely virtual victims and will be massively discounted in after the event criticism. The focus will be on those who died as a result of "our Government's decision". Not on those who were allegedly saved because "we cannot be sure they would have died can we?"

Indeed, we cannot be sure. Im fact, the actual event of 9/11 give us an empiric first idea of what the chances are that the plane fails to kill anyone on the ground: 1 in 4 planes did in fact miss. So any shoot-down would have to factor in the chance that the plane would otherwise crash without hitting anyone.

[jimd3100]

Originally Posted by alienentity

new policies were implemented after the attacks.

No kidding

Originally Posted by jimd3100

There were standing operating procedures that have since been modified.

Again

Originally Posted by jimd3100

You see, that wasn't the case on 9-11 procedures have changed.

I like how we go from this....

Originally Posted by alienentity

You haven't shown any lie about the shoot down order.

to this..

Originally Posted by alienentity

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and simply say that he got important details wrong.

LOL!

There were lots of lies that about the shoot down order you refuse to admit exist out here in the real world. Here's a good one....
Bush and Rumsfeld telling the Washington Post in 2002 of how they were on the ball and doing just what they should as our Military leaders.....

Quote:

Bush then talked to Rumsfeld to clarify the procedures military pilots should follow in trying to force an unresponsive plane to the ground before opening fire on it. First, pilots would seek to make radio contact with the other plane and tell the pilot to land at a specific location. If that failed, the pilots were to use visual signals. These included having the fighters fly in front of the other plane.

If the plane continued heading toward what was seen as a significant target with apparently hostile intent, the U.S. pilot would have the authority to shoot it down. With Bush's approval, Rumsfeld passed the order down the chain of command.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

But that wasn't a lie was it?

9-11 Commission:

Quote:

Quote:

“The President apparently spoke to Secretary Rumsfeld for the first time that morning shortly after 10:00. No one can recall the content of this conversation, but it was a brief call in which the subject of shootdown authority was NOT discussed.”

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf

Go ahead and try to help your lying politicians re write history. You will lose.

And a nice try and trying to put the Vice President in the Chain of Command....

Originally Posted by alienentity

Here's a list of the 'chain of command' that I got from one researcher:

Try Harder...

No- that is the United States presidential line of succession and defines who may become or act as President of the United States upon the incapacity, death, resignation, or removal from office (by impeachment and subsequent conviction) of a sitting president or a president-elect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._of_succession

Doesn't really apply does it?

And the fake argument keeps going....

Originally Posted by alienentity

There was definitely no stand-down.

Like I said...

Originally Posted by jimd3100

Here beachnut is falsely implying that "shure" is claiming a stand down order was issued. When in fact the opposite is true, when it comes to orders issued.

Again

Originally Posted by jimd3100

The lies are from you, saying that we are suggesting a stand down order

Again

Originally Posted by jimd3100

No, you tell lies and make things up. We don't imply a shoot down order was not issued.

Again

Originally Posted by jimd3100

the point was to get these people to stop saying Cheney ordered a stand down. Me nor Shure believe Cheney or anyone else ordered a stand down.

Again

Originally Posted by jimd3100

There was no stand down order issued.

Again

Originally Posted by jimd3100

There is no evidence of a stand down order

Be careful you might learn something...

Originally Posted by alienentity

Some people like to pick the wings off the Bush and Cheney flies, just to imagine them crawling around and hatching evil plots, I guess. It still won't change the basic facts, which we know - no stand-down, and a shoot-down order by 10:31 am.

No kidding, 10:31 is after the attacks and was that order relayed to the pilots? If not how come?

Originally Posted by alienentity

Really the only thing you have uncovered is that the NCA did not respond with a shoot down order while the initial attacks were taking place; this was done only later, by your account

Cheney called Bush at 10:18 and told him he had already issued the order. They describe it as "confirmation". Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was doing what a good press secretary should and was keeping meticulous notes on this historic occasion. What is more historic than the President issuing a shoot down order?

Originally Posted by jimd3100

Oh, they issued shoot down orders. Bush at 10:20

Unfortunately, he issued it to Cheney-or more accurately he said OK to Cheney's order-maybe he should think about being commander in chief -no?

Quote:

"Fleischer’s 10:20 note is the first mention of shootdown authority. See White House notes,Ari Fleischer notes, Sept. 11, 2001; see also Ari Fleischer interview (Apr. 22, 2004)."

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report...port_Notes.pdf

Now let's get to the quote mining .....

Originally Posted by alienentity

I didn't even need a wall of links and quotes for that - anybody can peruse the thread and read about those things. But just for the record, I'll reiterate the most important one: 'Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31' (p 62 9/11 Commission Report)

The full quote:

Quote:

Third, NEADS needed orders to pass to the pilots. At 10:10,the pilots over Washington were emphatically told,“negative clearance to shoot.” Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31. It is possible that NORAD commanders would have ordered a shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President,but given the gravity of the decision to shoot down a commercial airliner, and NORAD’s caution that a mistake not be made, we view this possibility as unlikely.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

And did NEADS pass the order on to the pilots?

Originally Posted by alienentity

The 9/11 Commission states that 'leaders in Washington believed that the fighters above them had been instructed to "take out" hostile aircraft' (p 59

And now the full quote with what you left out in red....

Quote:

The NEADS commander told us he did not pass along the order because he was unaware of its ramifications.Both the mission commander and the senior weapons director indicated they did not pass the order to the fighters circling Washington and New York because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance. In short, while leaders in Washington believed that the fighters above them had been instructed to “take out”hostile aircraft,the only orders actually conveyed to the pilots were to “ID type and tail.”

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf

And more:

Originally Posted by alienentity

Interestingly the next sentence reads 'It is possible that NORAD commanders would have ordered the shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President...' and 'NORAD officials maintain that they would have intercepted and shot down United 93'/

And here is the full quote, I highlighted in red what you deliberately left out.....

Quote:

Third, NEADS needed orders to pass to the pilots. At 10:10,the pilots over Washington were emphatically told,“negative clearance to shoot.” Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31. It is possible that NORAD commanders would have ordered a shootdown in the absence of the authorization communicated by the Vice President, but given the gravity of the decision to shoot down a commercial airliner, and NORAD’s caution that a mistake not be made, we view this possibility as unlikely.

NORAD officials have maintained that they would have intercepted and shot down United 93. We are not so sure.We are sure that the nation owes a debt to the passengers of United 93.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf

So- did they pass the order to the pilots? Answer: no

Quote:

The NEADS commander told us he did not pass along the order because he was unaware of its ramifications.Both the mission commander and the senior weapons director indicated they did not pass the order to the fighters circling Washington and New York because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance. In short, while leaders in Washington believed that the fighters above them had been instructed to “take out”hostile aircraft, the only orders actually conveyed to the pilots were to “ID type and tail.”

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf

Like I said..

Originally Posted by jimd3100

they refused to pass on Cheney's order.

Like I said...

Originally Posted by jimd3100

The 9-11 commission has answered that. They would ignore it and instead tell pilots to ID, type, and tail.

And why is that Captain Ron?

Quote:

Newly published audio this week reveals that Vice President Dick Cheney’s infamous Sept. 11, 2001 order to shoot down rogue civilian aircraft was ignored by military officials, who instead ordered pilots to only identify suspect aircraft.
Most striking of all is the revelation that an order by Vice President Dick Cheney was ignored by the military, which saw his order to shoot down aircraft as outside the chain of command.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/0...ot-down-order/

And again

Originally Posted by jimd3100

They didn't pass on Cheney's order because he was not authorized to give it. This is a fact.; It happened. Deal with it. The VP is not part of the NCA.

Originally Posted by alienentity

The 9/11 Commission states that 'leaders in Washington believed that the fighters above them had been instructed to "take out" hostile aircraft' (p 59)

Did you forget something?

Quote:

In short, while leaders in Washington believed that the fighters abovethem had been instructed to “take out”hostile aircraft, the only orders actually conveyed to the pilots were to “ID type and tail.”

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm

Stand down? What stand down? Bush and Rumsfeld stood down. No one is blaming Cheney.

Quote:

GEN. ARNOLD: That is correct. In fact, the American Airlines 77, if we were to have arrived overhead at that particular point, I don’t think that we would have shot that aircraft down.

MR. HAMILTON: Because?

GEN. ARNOLD: Well, we had not been given authority –

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archiv...2003-05-23.htm

Bush and Rumsfeld were "to busy". They stood down for over an hour. They have no excuse.

Originally Posted by jimd3100

They wouldn't be ignoring orders from Bush or Rumsfeld. That is the point. Why is Cheney giving the orders? He isn't authorized. Why wasn't Rumsfeld or Bush assuming their duties as Commander in Chief and Sec of Defense?

Quote:

"Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense)."

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Originally Posted by alienentity

It would be highly inaccurate to state that there was no shoot down order (as happened earlier in this thread)

No shoot down order during during the attacks and you know it you even admit you knew it....

Originally Posted by alienentity

Really the only thing you have uncovered is that the NCA did not respond with a shoot down order while the initial attacks were taking place; this was done only later, by your account.

You're being incredibly dishonest.

Originally Posted by alienentity

Every indication is that Cheney was trying to get planes shot down if they threatened the Capitol; to conclude otherwise is just foolish and borderline stupid.

No one concluded otherwise-another fake argument...

Originally Posted by jimd3100

On 9-11 Bush and Rumsfeld left Cheney in charge. He's not in the military chain of command.

Originally Posted by alienentity

There's no real justification for demonizing him because he didn't stop the attacks.

You're still making phoney arguments. No one has done that.

Originally Posted by alienentity

The only way one could deny that Bush gave the order is if one could prove that Bush didn't talk to Cheney during that time - and that is not what the evidence shows.

Really?

Quote:

Another finding of the commission's report raises questions both of credibility, and of leadership.
In Newsweek, Daniel Klaidman and Michael Hirsh ask: "Who Was Really In Charge?" And specifically: Did Cheney really get Bush's permission before issuing his shoot-down order?
"NEWSWEEK has learned that some on the commission staff were, in fact, highly skeptical of the vice president's account and made their views clearer in an earlier draft of their staff report. According to one knowledgeable source, some staffers 'flat out didn't believe the call ever took place.'

"When the early draft conveying that skepticism was circulated to the administration, it provoked an angry reaction. In a letter from White House lawyers last Tuesday and a series of phone calls, the White House vigorously lobbied the commission to change the language in its report. 'We didn't think it was written in a way that clearly reflected the accounting the president and vice president had given to the commission,' White House spokesman Dan Bartlett told NEWSWEEK.

"Ultimately the chairman and vice chair of the commission, former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean and former representative Lee Hamilton -- both of whom have sought mightily to appear nonpartisan -- agreed to remove some of the offending language. The report 'was watered down,' groused one staffer."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun21.html

Quote:

Among the sources that reflect other important events of that morning, there is no documentary evidence for this call, but the relevant sources are incomplete.

http://www.911commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Quote:

But the 9/11 Commission found "no documentary evidence for this call" amid numerous communications logs and contemporaneous notes from the White House bunker and Mr. Bush’s airplane.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...EY_MEMOIR.html

Quote:

NEWSWEEK has learned that some on the commission staff were, in fact, highly skeptical of the vice president's account and made their views clearer in an earlier draft of their staff report. According to one knowledgeable source, some staffers "flat out didn't believe the call ever took place."

http://web.archive.org/web/201008082...site/newsweek/

Might want to be a little skepticale about this call, like I said......

Originally Posted by jimd3100

I suggest you be a tad more skeptical. There is no record of the call between Bush and Cheney when this order was given. There are records of all the other calls.

[alienentity]

I wanted to add a few observations to my previous post regarding the fact that Bush and Cheney spoke several times b4 10:30am on 9/11 from various locations, and the possible misconceptions about Cheney and the chain of command.

(FYI jimd you're on my ignore list, so while I can see that you've posted I'm not going to read or respond to them until further notice.)

Firstly, Cheney as we know had several conversations with Bush, and there were problems with the phones, which may account for some of the confusion about calls. Bush is reported to be having difficulty:

'For much of the day Bush is plagued by connectivity problems in trying to call Cheney and others. He is forced to use an ordinary cell phone instead of his secure phone'
9/11 Commission Report
While Bush and Cheney were on the phone shortly after Bush boarded Airforce One, at some point Cheney was informed that Flight 77 had hit the Pentagon. He relayed that info to Bush and obviously was being evacuated in the midst of all this communication. Cheney advised ' that three planes [are] missing and one had hit the Pentagon.'

It doesn't take much imagination to understand that Cheney was grasping there was a possible direct threat to the White House, and it stands to reason that he would urge Bush, as Richard Clarke had done to Cheney, to authorize a shoot down of any further hostile hijacked aircraft.
This is what Clarke relayed, this is what Cheney recounts, and so does Bush. The main controversy seems to be that Bush communicated the order to Cheney, not to Donald Rumsfeld, SecDef. Strictly speaking this might not be interpreted as correct according to NCA protocol, but I think this is open to debate and interpretation. The reason I say this is because it appears President Bush did in fact authorize the shootdown, communicating it to VP Cheney - I'm not convinced this violates NCA because all NCA requires is that the decision must be made by the President or SecDef - it appears this condition was satisfied.
However, some military commanders were not convinced on the day, exercising caution. One could argue for them or against them, but I don't think there is a single interpretation available which would cover all viewpoints on the matter. One thing is certain - the new guidelines permit direct authority from the VP as well, so this problem would not occur again. (but a new one might, who knows?)

We know there was confusion about this authorization on 9/11, and we can understand from where it arose. It was an inherent problem with the command structure vs circumstances and could have happened to any particular President that was in command during such an attack. It happened to be Bush and Cheney. This does not give us a valid reason to blame them for anything.

By all accounts Cheney was attempting to advise Bush and also to communicate Bush's authority. There is no evidence to contradict this conclusion, and without a recorded conversation nobody will ever know exactly what was said - that is impossible. Some of this information is going to be second-hand, some of it speculation, and ultimately rests on the direct recollections of Bush and Cheney et al. (ie it is not by any means 100% accurate in every aspect).

9/11 Commission:
' tell the Pentagon they have authority from the president to shoot down hostile aircraft, repeat, they have authority to shoot down hostile aircraft.'

[jimd3100]

Originally Posted by alienentity

(FYI jimd you're on my ignore list, so while I can see that you've posted I'm not going to read or respond to them until further notice.)

LOL, not surprising.

And the person issuing the orders to the pilots (and refused Cheney's order and instead ordered to ID Type tail) was Lt. Col. Kevin J. Nasypany...

Quote:

Regional Commander had declared that tracks that did not respond to direction could be shot down. At 1433 it is confirmed that
this order was cleared through the Vice President.

Nasypany also commented that there was no weapons free order on 9/11 to his
knowledge. If there was a "weapons free" declaration, the pilots would still need
permission through the chain of command to fire upon a target.

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00771.pdf

[shure]

Originally Posted by alienentity

9/11 Commission:
' tell the Pentagon they have authority from the president to shoot down hostile aircraft, repeat, they have authority to shoot down hostile aircraft.'

alienentity,

I don't see the above quote you claim in the 9/11 Commission.

Please point out what page I can find it on.

http://www.911commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I disagree. Those on the plane do count, because there is a chance larger than zero that they take back the plane and manage to land it with at least some lives saved, or maybe even the hijacker has a change of heart....

Ooops...my false dichotomy the way I worded that.

Trying to briefly state what I wrote at greater length and some years back.

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by shure

alienentity,

I don't see the above quote you claim in the 9/11 Commission.

Please point out what page I can find it on.

http://www.911commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

It's not in the Commission report, apparently (ETA p.8 - thx to MikeW). It's in Richard Clarke's book 'Against All Enemies', and it was the message given to him by Army Major Fenzel from PEOC.
I don't have the Clarke book so I don't have a page reference, but this is supposed to be a quote:
' It was Fenzel. "Air Force One is getting ready to take off, with some press still on board. He'll divert to an air base. Fighter escort is authorized. And..." He paused. "Tell the Pentagon that they have authority from the President to shoot down hostile aircraft, repeat, they have authority to shoot down hostile aircraft."'

Interestingly Clarke mentions (in the more extensive quote that I found) that Rumsfeld is on the teleconference at this time, and by the time that PEOC relays the shoot down authorization from Bush, the Pentagon has been hit. Rumsfeld reports that the studio is filling with smoke. Flt 77 hit at 9:37am, so again this suggests the shoot down decision was made between that time and 9:58am.

Regarding questions about the shoot down, Clarke mentions General Myers wants more detail on the ROE.
'General Myers asked, "Okay, shoot down aircraft, but what are the ROE?" ROE were Rules of Engagement. It was one thing to say it's okay to shoot down a hijacked aircraft threatening to kill people on the ground, but we needed to give pilots more specific guidelines than that. I asked Miller and Greenwood to make sure DOD had an answer to that question quickly. "I don't want them delaying while they lawyer that to death."

Another really useful detail from Clarke is this mention of flight 93.
"Secret Service reports a hostile aircraft ten minutes out."

Since flight 93 crashed at 10:03am, that corroborates the approximate time for these conversations as sometime around 9:45 to 9:55am.

From this we know that President Bush did not give authorization thru PEOC until sometime after the Pentagon crash, but before the Shanksville crash.
There was no way that the authorization could have prevented those attacks given this timeline unless perhaps flight 93 had remained in the air for a much longer time, for example.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Against_All_Enemies

[MikeW]

Originally Posted by alienentity

It's not in the Commission report, apparently. It's in Richard Clarke's book 'Against All Enemies', and it was the message given to him by Army Major Fenzel from PEOC.
I don't have the Clarke book so I don't have a page reference, but this is supposed to be a quote:

That's page 8 (in my UK paperback edition, anyway), just for anyone interested.

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by MikeW

That's page 8 (in my UK paperback edition, anyway), just for anyone interested.

Hey thanks! I should probably pick up a copy.

[jimd3100]

Originally Posted by alienentity

According to Richard Clarke, the shoot down authorization came between 9:45 and 9:56, after Bush and Cheney had spoken on a secure phone in a tunnel between the White House and PEOC.

You might want to add that the 9-11 commission rejected Mineta's story as it was not accurate. What does this have to do with Clarke? They also rejected several of Clarke's accounts as well. Which is why they didn't include them in their report. But that's OK. YOU will put these accounts in the 9-11 commission report yourself.

Let me demonstrate:

Originally Posted by alienentity

9/11 Commission:
' tell the Pentagon they have authority from the president to shoot down hostile aircraft, repeat, they have authority to shoot down hostile aircraft.'

The quote you claim is in the 9-11 commission report was rejected by the 9-11 commission becuase they found numerous errors in Clarkes' account. The quote is from Clarke's book-page 8. Not the 9-11 commission report as you wrote. They rejected his account. Just like they rejected Mineta's account.

Originally Posted by alienentity

The 9/11 Commission puts the time for the order at 10:18am, which is certainly after Cheney arrived at PEOC and after the phone calls between Bush and Cheney. It cannot be established by a third party exactly what Bush and Cheney discussed during the phone calls, but the shoot down order clearly was relayed by Cheney AFTER the phone call.

BEFORE and after the call. Cheney had already given the order before this 10:18 phone call. In fact the excuse for this 10:18 call was, to get "confirmation", that Bush had ALREADY issued a shoot down order to Cheney during the imaginary phone call they made up. You know, the call that they can't decide who called who, and that the 9-11 commission had found no evidence for, and they didn't believe happened, which is just one reason why Bush/Cheney didn't want to be under oath or transcribed, or even seen, while giving their story? That call.

Remember the guy asking "do the orders still stand?" (D Cochrane) Well that was before the 10:18 call so Cheney is already giving the order.

Quote:

Joshua Bolten, a White House aide who was also in the bunker, then asked Mr. Cheney to call Mr. Bush to "confirm" that order; the vice president is not part of the military chain of command. (As it turned out, the question was moot: all four hijacked planes had already crashed.) Later, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush told the 9/11 Commission that there had been an earlier phone call — But the 9/11 Commission found "no documentary evidence for this call" amid numerous communications logs and contemporaneous notes from the White House bunker and Mr. Bush’s airplane.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...EY_MEMOIR.html

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

First plane strike - 8:46
- At this point, a few minutes after the strike, the only info that the POTUS has is that a plane of some kind has crashed into the WTC1.

Yea, it's not like he was told a it was a commercial airliner. Even though the 9-11 commission, C Rice and G Bush himself expose that you don't know what you're talking about. Your theories and opinions are more important.

G Bush himself:

Quote:

"Then Condi called. I spoke to her from a secure phone in a classroom that had been converted into a communications center for the traveling White House staff. She told me the plane that had just struck the Trade Center tower was not a light aircraft. It was a commercial jetliner."
"I was stunned. That plane must have had the worst pilot in the world."

Page 126
http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Point...der_0307590615

9-11 commission released notes:

Quote:

"(so POTUS knew when he hung up it was a commercial plane??)"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16571575/T...ript-Notes-998

"I was stunned. That plane must have had the worst pilot in the world." Maybe you are G Bush?

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

Second plane strike - 9:03
- This strike leave no doubt...it's obviously a terror attack. However, at this point, the general consensus here is that it could be over. Both attacks are limited to the NYC area. Surely, there are no more.

LOL! Yes, surely! What a relief the second WTC has been hit with yet another commercial airliner, now we can rest easy knowing these attacks surely must be over! LOL! You really do live on your own planet don't you?

Originally Posted by jimd3100

As Ron Wieck pointed out in his talk with Jeff Hill, after seeing the second plane strike he was wondering how many other planes there were, Bush was busy with other things, no one was keeping Bush from contacting the Military or FAA, instead he called Cheney to go over what wording he would use at his address at 9:30.

I think Ron Wieck in his talk with Jeff gave the general consensus of the people of planet earth. (Starting around the 27 minute mark - in OP)Your "general consensus" applies only to the people of the planet you're from.

But again - I think the fact that we still after 10 years can't see important information concerning who was involved in the murder of 3000 Americans is more important.

I've seen others post their theories on this thread. So let me share one. Here is my theory. My theory is that elements of the Saudi Government were involved. My theory is that our President kept that from the American people because it ruins his goal of getting America to attack Iraq (Which the Saudis also want) My theory is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and those 28 pages show that. But the President protected Saudi's in order to go after Iraq. And some of those Saudis are personal friends.

The release of those 28 pages will either expose me as a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist or not. I'm willing to take that risk. Anyone else think the American people have a right to see those pages? The people that wrote them said 95% has nothing to do with National Security or compromising sources and methods. If that is true IMO it is pretty outrageous that we still can not see them.

Ali Soufan was an FBI agent who risked his life going after Al Qaeda. He wrote in regards to the CIA keeping information from the FBI until after 9-11.....

Quote:

FBI special agent Andre Khoury had been stationed elsewhere in the Middle East when the planes hit the towers. He was reassigned to join us in Yemen, and after he arrived and saw the file, he wanted to confront the ___. I held Andre back.

"They knew! Why didn't they tell us?!" Andre said.
"You're right." I said. "and I'm just as angry. Believe me. But now is not the time to ask these questions. One day someone will ask the questions and find out, but right now we have to focus on the task at hand."

page 290
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Banners-.../dp/0393079422

"One day someone will ask the questions and find out, but right now we have to focus on the task at hand."

Kevin Fenton and the guys at http://www.secrecykills.com/ are trying to find answers to those questions and looks like they have been blocked. Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swann also are trying to find these answers, and Richard Clarke has expressed a theory on the subject. Why are people opposed to the truth and Ali Soufan?

He also wrote:

Quote:

We have already seen how the Bush Administration, unsatisfied with an initial FBI report showing no links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, asked for a rewrite, a request that senior FBI official Andy Arena refused.

http://books.google.com/books?id=IkM...Soufan&f=false

I'm not saying Al qaeda didn't attack the U.S. on 9-11. I'm saying they did, and I went back into the armed Forces after 9-11 so I could personally have the pleasure of blowing their brains out myself. But I don't like being propagandized, manipulated, and lied to, or "incompetent" politicians re-writing history . I say it's about time to release those 28 pages. And see how my theory holds up.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by alienentity

Hey thanks! I should probably pick up a copy.

Just don't get the book on cd like I have. Good for the commute, bad for citations.

[Oystein]

jimd, I have you on ignore, as you previously showed no interest in a reasoned debate in which you would make claims and list premises. But before I logged in, I could see your post, and this here caught my attention:

Originally Posted by jimd3100

...
I've seen others post their theories on this thread. So let me share one. Here is my theory.

Whoa, a theory! I have been asking for people to write down their theory of what happened on 9/11 for over a year now! Would you mind putting yours in this thread? Thanks:
Roll Call: What do you think happened on 9/11, and why?

Now let's see what your theory is.

Originally Posted by jimd3100

My theory is that elements of the Saudi Government were involved.

Alright! Surely you will tell us next what the Saudis did, right?

Originally Posted by jimd3100

My theory is that our President kept that from the American people

Urrr - "that"? What? The Saudis did something terrible, but you are not telling us? Seems like G Bush isn't the only one who's keeping that fromn the American people - you're keeping what you know it from the American people as well, aren't you?

Originally Posted by jimd3100

because it ruins his goal of getting America to attack Iraq (Which the Saudis also want)

Why would that be so? If you could only tewll us what that "that" is that Bush is hiding... Can you tell us this? How do you know that "that" would have ruined the Iraq war?

Originally Posted by jimd3100

My theory is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and those 28 pages show that.

With this you are breaking into wide open doors.
I am fairly certain that there is not as single poster in this sub-forum who isn't on your side here. Everybody knows that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!

Originally Posted by jimd3100

But the President protected Saudi's in order to go after Iraq.

Protected them from what? How do you know?
Where is your theory? We have learned so far that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, and that the Saudis have something to do with 9/11.

What's missing is really your theory. Who did what to make or let 9/11 happen. How were the Saudis involved, and how do you know they are?

Got evidence? Anythin at all?

Originally Posted by jimd3100

And some of those Saudis are personal friends.

Goddam them personal friends

Originally Posted by jimd3100

The release of those 28 pages will either expose me as a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist or not.

Yes, that's a complete enumeration of the possibilities and hence a tautology. The release of the 28 pages will also reveal who shot JFK or not, and give us the greatest recipe for lamb stew in the world or not.

Originally Posted by jimd3100

I'm willing to take that risk.

Ah thanks for taking such great personal risks! Hey custodian of the secret Bush presidency documnents, you can release it now! jimd will take the risk! We're safe now!

Originally Posted by jimd3100

Anyone else think the American people have a right to see those pages? The people that wrote them said 95% has nothing to do with National Security or compromising sources and methods. If that is true IMO it is pretty outrageous that we still can not see them.

And that proves your theory how? Uhm what IS your theory, again?
Oh right - you forgot to tell us.

Originally Posted by jimd3100

...
I say it's about time to release those 28 pages. And see how my theory holds up.

You need to tell us your theory first. Saying "The Saudis are involved" without presenting evidence is not a theory, it's an insult really.



As the late and great Christopher Hitchens taught us: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Your theory is dismissed. Mainly because it isn't a theory. And secondarily, because you refer to evidence that isn't available.

[jimd3100]

Bob Graham was Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. And knows what is in those pages.

Edited by Lisa Simpson:

To remove Rule 0 breach.

Bill Maher interviews Bob Graham - 9/11 Saudi Connection
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOHGR4RxZVs

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Oystein

jimd, I have you on ignore, as you previously showed no interest in a reasoned debate in which you would make claims and list premises. But before I logged in, I could see your post, and this here caught my attention:



Whoa, a theory! I have been asking for people to write down their theory of what happened on 9/11 for over a year now! Would you mind putting yours in this thread? Thanks:
Roll Call: What do you think happened on 9/11, and why?

Now let's see what your theory is.


Alright! Surely you will tell us next what the Saudis did, right?


Urrr - "that"? What? The Saudis did something terrible, but you are not telling us? Seems like G Bush isn't the only one who's keeping that fromn the American people - you're keeping what you know it from the American people as well, aren't you?


Why would that be so? If you could only tewll us what that "that" is that Bush is hiding... Can you tell us this? How do you know that "that" would have ruined the Iraq war?


With this you are breaking into wide open doors.
I am fairly certain that there is not as single poster in this sub-forum who isn't on your side here. Everybody knows that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!


Protected them from what? How do you know?
Where is your theory? We have learned so far that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, and that the Saudis have something to do with 9/11.

What's missing is really your theory. Who did what to make or let 9/11 happen. How were the Saudis involved, and how do you know they are?

Got evidence? Anythin at all?


Goddam them personal friends


Yes, that's a complete enumeration of the possibilities and hence a tautology. The release of the 28 pages will also reveal who shot JFK or not, and give us the greatest recipe for lamb stew in the world or not.


Ah thanks for taking such great personal risks! Hey custodian of the secret Bush presidency documnents, you can release it now! jimd will take the risk! We're safe now!


And that proves your theory how? Uhm what IS your theory, again?
Oh right - you forgot to tell us.


You need to tell us your theory first. Saying "The Saudis are involved" without presenting evidence is not a theory, it's an insult really.



As the late and great Christopher Hitchens taught us: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Your theory is dismissed. Mainly because it isn't a theory. And secondarily, because you refer to evidence that isn't available.

Well elaborated Oystein. I keep watching to see if jimd3100 will tell us what his claim is....all I have seen so far is that he is angry about something but not prepared to tell us what it is other than a lot of trivia.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by jimd3100

Bob Graham was Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. And knows what is in those pages.

Edited by Lisa Simpson:

To remove Rule 0 breach.

Bill Maher interviews Bob Graham - 9/11 Saudi Connection
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOHGR4RxZVs

When was this interview done?

[jimd3100]

Originally Posted by Oystein

When was this interview done?

Like I said.

Originally Posted by jimd3100

Edited by Lisa Simpson:

To remove Rule 0 breach.

Bayoumi was a Saudi Agent helping some hijackers. But it's just a coincidence he is a nice guy. He's just one-there are others. Maybe you should read the 9-11 commission report and the joint inquiry before spewing your BS about 9-11?

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-1...mb-bayoumi.pdf

Quote:

"Despite the fact that he was a student, al-Bayoumi had access to seemingly unlimited funding from Saudi Arabia. For example, an FBI source identified al-Bayoumi as the person who delivered $400,000 from Saudi Arabia for the Kurdish mosque in San Diego. One of the FBI’s best sources in San Diego informed the FBI that he thought that al-Bayoumi must be an intelligence officer for Saudi Arabia or another foreign power."

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/c...ort_errata.pdf

Quote:

"Since September 11, the FBI has learned that al-Bayoumi has connections to terrorist elements. He has been tied to an imam abroad who has connections to al-Qa’ida. Further, the FBI’s Executive Assistant Director for Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence described in testimony before the Joint Inquiry FBI contacts “with the [ redacted] government about collection on a person named [redacted ], who has ties to al-Qa’ida, who has ties to al-Bayoumi.”

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/c...ort_errata.pdf

Quote:

John Lehman thought that he asked some of the tougher questions of Bush during the session, especially about the possibility of Saudi government ties to some of the hijackers. Lehman recalled asking Bush about the news reports that checks for thousands of dollars written by the wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador in Washington, might have been funneled to two of the hijackers in San Diego. "He dodged the questions," said Lehman.

page 344
http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Unc...=5336432715-20

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by jimd3100

Like I said.
...

Instead of repeating an insult which I already reported (ETA: Which was already actioned), why don't you take the opportunity to educate me and answer the question: When was this interview of Bob Graham by Bill Maher done?

Also, you owe us a theory. Saying "The Saudis are involved" is not a theory.

Also, we told you a few times already that your style of posting walls of text with too many links is not a way to gain traction here and convince anybody. You'd do much better if you began to clearly state your claims, and then listed your premises.

[jimd3100]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Instead of repeating an insult which I already reported (ETA: Which was already actioned), why don't you take the opportunity to educate me and answer the question: When was this interview of Bob Graham by Bill Maher done?

Also, you owe us a theory. Saying "The Saudis are involved" is not a theory.

Also, we told you a few times already that your style of posting walls of text with too many links is not a way to gain traction here and convince anybody. You'd do much better if you began to clearly state your claims, and then listed your premises.

I owe you nothing. But I'm such a nice guy I will assist you anyway-Your ignore button seems to be broken. (maybe report that to)

Originally Posted by Oystein

jimd, I have you on ignore

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by jimd3100

I owe you nothing. But I'm such a nice guy I will assist you anyway-Your ignore button seems to be broken.

I had to put you off of my ignore list in order to report your breach of your MA.
ETA: Ok, so you don't owe us a theory - but without a theory, without a proposition, there's nothing to debate, or is there?

Anyway: When was the interview done?

[shure]

Common Jim,

Oystein doesn't want official record facts because he will just ignore them. Oystein wants theories!!!

Can't you just make stuff up like beachnut and alienentity???

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by shure

Common Jim,

Oystein doesn't want official record facts because he will just ignore them. Oystein wants theories!!!
...

I want you both to state clearly which clains you derive from whatever evidence you present. You just fail to do that.

To give you an example, jimd wrote:

Originally Posted by jimd3100

...
I've seen others post their theories on this thread. So let me share one. Here is my theory. My theory is that elements of the Saudi Government were involved. My theory is that our President kept that from the American people because it ruins his goal of getting America to attack Iraq (Which the Saudis also want) My theory is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and those 28 pages show that. But the President protected Saudi's in order to go after Iraq. And some of those Saudis are personal friends.

The release of those 28 pages will either expose me as a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist or not. I'm willing to take that risk.
...

See, it wasn't I who brought up the issue of theories. It was jimd who claimed "Here is my theory", and then went on to NOT write a theory.
And I still haven't been told when the Maher-Graham interview was recorded. Can you tell me, shure?
ETA: I scratched the last line and the question therein. Shure has forgotten to inform us that he acknowledges how he has been owned and caught lying on the "shoot-down/stand-down" issue, and how he was wrong about the "Saudi allies" issue. Shure, please read some pages back, say something to close the orders-issue (you know, retract your unsupported or false claims), and apologize for the lies. After that, maybe I'll debate you on the "Saudis were involved" topic.

[shure]

Originally Posted by Oystein

And I still haven't been told when the Maher-Graham interview was recorded. Can you tell me, shure?

Which video?

Here is a good video with Bob Graham from a few months ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvs11bFRF8g

[jimd3100]

Originally Posted by shure

Which video?

Here is a good video with Bob Graham from a few months ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvs11bFRF8g

You are not supposed to listen to Bob Graham you are supposed to listen to Oystein. Oystein supports 9-11 truthers who say Bob Graham is full of ****, and maybe he's "in on it". That's my latest theory. Am I giving you enough theories Oystein?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by jimd3100

You are not supposed to listen to Bob Graham you are supposed to listen to Oystein. Oystein supports 9-11 truthers who say Bob Graham is full of ****, and maybe he's "in on it". That's my latest theory. Am I giving you enough theories Oystein?

I am not saying that at all. Why do you lie and defame me?

I am only asking you when the Maher-Graham interview was recorded. Can'tr you just answer that, please?

[shure]

Ah yes, what does Graham know? After all he was only the head of the intelligence committee investigating 9/11.

Quote:

Bob Graham Wants 9/11 Inquiry Reopened
Posted Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 05:09 pm
http://www.wusf.usf.edu/news/2011/09...quiry_reopened

[jimd3100]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I am only asking you when the Maher-Graham interview was recorded. Can'tr you just answer that, please?

Oh poor Oystein being defamed -what is that like? It was never recorded. Graham is a hologram and the video is fake. That is my newest theory for you. Am I still on ignore ( I hope) and does that mean I don't get a Christmas card?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by jimd3100

Oh poor Oystein being defamed -what is that like? It was never recorded. Graham is a hologram and the video is fake. That is my newest theory for you. Am I still on ignore ( I hope) and does that mean I don't get a Christmas card?

I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with this silliness. Just tell me when the Maher-Graham interview was recorded, please.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with this silliness. Just tell me when the Maher-Graham interview was recorded, please.

For the record I don't think either of them is as stupid as they try to present.

BUT neither of them is prepared to put forward a claim/"theory"/hypothesis/explanation and support it with argument.

Just these walls of links without a coherent thought attached. Plus the "angry young man" noise.

You have far more patience than I have Oystein.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by shure

Ah yes, what does Graham know? After all he was only the head of the intelligence committee investigating 9/11.

Bob wants your vote , or to buy his book . Can you vote in the USA? Go buy his book. ... then say you own the book and cherry-pick your next quote-mined hearsay junk to support jimd delusional failed logic stand-down claim .

What is Bob's claim? Or does it matter? Bob is one of those, first to blackboard kind of guys, and he has snowed you. Is Bob a hearsay source for those with a pathetic need of a new investigation because they can't figure out 911?

Why has Bob failed to earn a Pulitzer? Right, he has the same evidence you have. What happen to the "stand-down"failure? Does Bob support that? The truth... Bob is selling his book (fiction), he does not care if there is an investigation, he needs to sell his book (fiction).

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by shure

Common Jim,

Oystein doesn't want official record facts because he will just ignore them. Oystein wants theories!!!

Can't you just make stuff up like beachnut and alienentity???

What did I make up? Or am I not allowed to speculate as you two have done?

[Oystein]

For the record, shure and jimd, here are some of my opinions, so you won't totally misrepresent my position:

• It is totally totally obvious that some elements in Saudi Arabia were among the forces behind 9/11 - after all, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. It is bearly inconceivablke that they did not have helpers and financers within S.A.
• The Saudi regime is dirty, rotten, criminal and an abomination. The USA's close ties with S.A. taste and smell bad
• I would like to know more about Saudi involvement
• GW Bush is a baffoon, a scoundrel, a criminal, and I hate him as much as you do
• I don't know Bob Graham, but he seems to be a respected politician
• Iraq wasn't invaded because of 9/11 - the attacks just came convenient to create an atmosphere where the war could be sold to the American (and British) people
• etc.

(Please notice: I said opinions. Not facts. I am passing this with full awareness that I don't present them with supporting evidence! Some of these opinions I could support with evidence, some are just judgement calls.)

That said, you still have neither a theory that makes specific Saudi elements (other than those already identified by the "official" story) actors on the side of AQ on 9/11, nor do I see evidence for any such theory.

I am also not likely to see such a theory or such evidence, because I do not read your walls of unstructured allegations and randomly scattered links. You need to focus! You need to state clearly which (new!) propositions you wish to claim, you need to establish (and be clear about) your premises, and you better do so more concisely that you have so far. You need to be willing to correct your errors, or shed them - for example: You have both been thoroughly schooled on the shoot-down issue and shown to have come here with empty hands. It would make you look better, not worse, and earn you considerable if you could just acknowledge that you have been schooled and thanked us for the lessons, instead of just running away from that failure, when everybody can see the dust cloud you are trailing. Next: You need to think harder about which statements are factual (and can thus be true or false), political opinion (everyone can have one or more), legal (which might leave some room for gray areas), etc. You need to be clear on which sources are primary, secondary, or hearsay. You ought to indiciate that you are truly skeptical about your own sources. For example, when Bob Graham makes bold claims while trying to win the Democratic presidential nomination, it wouldn't hurt you if you acknowledged that he may be speaking as a political candidate and not as an impartial investigator, and that you are therefore going to take his words with a healthy grain of salt!

Get that?

And now please have the coutesy to answer: When was the Maher-Graham interview recorded?

[cjnewson88]

Just a quick question. A great deal of this call is about Cheney's apparent lack of authority to order or 'relay' a shoot down order. I thought Cheney, as the Vice President, did have the authority to order a shoot down?

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

Just a quick question. A great deal of this call is about Cheney's apparent lack of authority to order or 'relay' a shoot down order. I thought Cheney, as the Vice President, did have the authority to order a shoot down?

As Vice President, he does not, since he is not part of the National Command Authority. He only gets the power if he becomes "duly deputized" by the President. The NCA is a structure that has been put into place post-cold war, however the VP never really had such authority. Lookup the National Command Authority in wiki, etc. and you will get all the details, except what procedure it actually takes to duly deputize.

[Oystein]

In my mind, it is still a wide open question if anyone at all has the authority to order such a shoot-down of a domestic civilian airliner, in the sense that nobody - not the President, not the entire combined NCA, not even Congress - has the authority to order, for example, torture, genocide, or nuking Texas.

But it is a pretty irrelevant, academic question to ask this about the VP, as no plane was actually shot down, and nobody even tried to shoot down any plane.

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by Oystein

In my mind, it is still a wide open question if anyone at all has the authority to order such a shoot-down of a domestic civilian airliner, in the sense that nobody - not the President, not the entire combined NCA, not even Congress - has the authority to order, for example, torture, genocide, or nuking Texas.

But it is a pretty irrelevant, academic question to ask this about the VP, as no plane was actually shot down, and nobody even tried to shoot down any plane.

I tend to agree. I take the absence of any such documented authority as evidence it does not exist. And no, that's not "proving a negative." Authority is legislated and codified. I suppose someone could claim the Prez has "word of mouth" authorization or that such authorization is "classified" but that's more a flight of fancy than anything.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Robrob

I tend to agree. I take the absence of any such documented authority as evidence it does not exist. And no, that's not "proving a negative." Authority is legislated and codified. I suppose someone could claim the Prez has "word of mouth" authorization or that such authorization is "classified" but that's more a flight of fancy than anything.

I disagree. The National Command Authority should be able to direct actions it deems necessary to protect the United States and it's government when it deems something a threat in times of emergency.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

I disagree. The National Command Authority should be able to direct actions it deems necessary to protect the United States and it's government when it deems something a threat in times of emergency.

There are two distinct questions:
1) Should the National command have the authority - your question; AND
2) Did the NCA in fact have the authority on 9/11 - which is what Oystein and Rob are addressing.

There are other questions. The first is specific to the actual 9/11 events - "Was there a window of opportunity in which the authority could have realistically been exercised on that day?" I recall doing the exercise a year or two back and concluding there was no realistic point of intervention.

Remember that to be implemented - the following assessment IMNSHO - the scenario would have had to be predicted and decision parameters identified in advance. No way would such a choice be taken 'on the fly' without prior analysis. And the trigger point would need to be at a stage when (1) there was high surety that there were to be multiple points of attack PLUS (2) assurance of intent because one attack had reached fruition. All that IMNSHO as I said earlier.

The second question is one of the suite of politically realistic ones which I would expect a responsible government to address when formulating such a drastic response: "What weight do you give to the international repercussions if you shoot down a civilian airliner which is carrying foreign nationals?" My subjective impression being that US citizens posting on the Internet would possibly give less weight to that factor than people from other western developed nations would. Whether that bias, if it existed, would reflect at Government policy level is another question naturally.

Whatever the various factors I cannot recall a serious discussion of the issues - i.e. one not trivialised by shallow thinking and the usual trolling nonsense.

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

I disagree. The National Command Authority should be able to direct actions it deems necessary to protect the United States and it's government when it deems something a threat in times of emergency.

Well that's the question, does it actually have the authority to do that (order military aircraft to fire on civilian planes)? I don't claim to know either way but would suspect such authority would be explicitly detailed, not left open to interpretation.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

I disagree. The National Command Authority should be able to direct actions it deems necessary to protect the United States and it's government when it deems something a threat in times of emergency.

You lay this at the discretion of the individuals who currently make up the NCA.

To get the argument clear: Do you also think that the NCA should be able to direct a genocide, torture whoever they want, or to nuke Texas, if it deems these actions necessary to protect the USA from a threat in times of emergency?

Or, to go boldly into Godwin land: If the NCA deemed the Jews to be a threat to the security of the country from which it needs protection, should it then have had the discretion and authority to round them up and kill the millions of them? If not, why not?


I think the point I am making is clear: There obviously would be limits of what the NCA can ever be authorized to do that cannot ever be crossed, no matter what the threat is.
In my opinion, it is not clear that directing weapons of war at one's own innocent civilians on one's own soil can ever be legally at the discretion of the NCA.