28 page 911 Commission bombshell?

[boneyard bill]

Cong. Walter Jones (R. N.C.) and Rep. Steven Lynch (D. Ma.) have co-sponsored a resolution seeking release of 28 pages from the 911 Commission Report that were redacted from the original report and classified by the Bush Administration. Cong. Jones, who has read the report, says he was "shocked" by what he found. Cong. Lynch agreed.

Leaked information on the report claims that it discusses the involvement of a foreign government in the 911 attacks. That government is Saudi Arabia.

So this is a sarcastic "shocked", right?

It would be for me because I wouldn't be surprised at anything from the Bush Administration or Obama either for that matter. But I can't speak for Congs. Jones and Lynch.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Many people have read the report and said there is nothing in it that jeopardizes national security. I would like to think that we actually have objective standards for determining what can be properly classified and what cannot. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we do so the bureaucrats can classify anything they damn well feel like. So if Obama is torturing babies, apparently we wouldn't be allowed to know that because he insists on classifying it.

As I said in the message you quoted it's impossible to tell if a report contains anything that jeopardizes security by reading it.

I do agree there are problems with classifying embarrassing things but that's no reason to open the floodgates. Unless you know the source of every fact in the report you simply can't make the call.

 

[boneyard bill]

Many people have read the report and said there is nothing in it that jeopardizes national security. I would like to think that we actually have objective standards for determining what can be properly classified and what cannot. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we do so the bureaucrats can classify anything they damn well feel like. So if Obama is torturing babies, apparently we wouldn't be allowed to know that because he insists on classifying it.

As I said in the message you quoted it's impossible to tell if a report contains anything that jeopardizes security by reading it.

I do agree there are problems with classifying embarrassing things but that's no reason to open the floodgates. Unless you know the source of every fact in the report you simply can't make the call.

What if release of the information is actually vital to national security? And what about criminal activity? Is it proper for the president to classify something that shows the he, or someone he wants to protect, is guilty of a serious criminal offense?

I deny that it is impossible to determine if something is vital to national security simply by reading it. How then, do we decide to classify anything? Is the process entirely arbitrary? Then that should be changed. Lots of classified information is de-classified after a period of time and with bin Laden and the and Bush out of office, it's hard to imagine how it could impact negatively on national security. But even if it did, it would be the job of those who would keep it classified to make the case that there are circumstances that require it even though those circumstances don't meet the eye.

 

[arkirk]

Many people have read the report and said there is nothing in it that jeopardizes national security. I would like to think that we actually have objective standards for determining what can be properly classified and what cannot. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like we do so the bureaucrats can classify anything they damn well feel like. So if Obama is torturing babies, apparently we wouldn't be allowed to know that because he insists on classifying it.

As I said in the message you quoted it's impossible to tell if a report contains anything that jeopardizes security by reading it.

I do agree there are problems with classifying embarrassing things but that's no reason to open the floodgates. Unless you know the source of every fact in the report you simply can't make the call.

There is every reason to open the floodgates. You are protecting war criminals. It really doesn't matter too much what country they are from. Let them defend themselves. You spend altogether too much of your time making sure that nobody can make any waves and change the scope of public knowledge. Your belief that government has to be secret means you accept insincere politicians and liars as long as everything goes smoothly for the elite. That makes plenty of room for swindlers and corrupt officials and war profiteers.

 

[Underseer]

As I said in the message you quoted it's impossible to tell if a report contains anything that jeopardizes security by reading it.

I do agree there are problems with classifying embarrassing things but that's no reason to open the floodgates. Unless you know the source of every fact in the report you simply can't make the call.

There is every reason to open the floodgates. You are protecting war criminals. It really doesn't matter too much what country they are from. Let them defend themselves. You spend altogether too much of your time making sure that nobody can make any waves and change the scope of public knowledge. Your belief that government has to be secret means you accept insincere politicians and liars as long as everything goes smoothly for the elite. That makes plenty of room for swindlers and corrupt officials and war profiteers.

Yes. The Bush administration are war criminals.

However, that doesn't mean that they ran a conspiracy with aliens to confiscate Elvis' brain or whatever.

 

[arkirk]

Underseer: I never said anything about Elvis' brain or whatever. There was top level cover up of torture and kidnapping and murder. There was destruction of the infrastructure of several nations. There was no WMD. There was insane war profiteering by people within the administration. Let us, the American public know the details so we can take measures to stop doing as we are still doing...attempting to dominate the world.

What about the global warming coverup? This is not Elvis' brain. This demands action and instead, our lying leaders just keep pushing for more chaotic foolhardy conflict. A number of oceanic small nations are begging for our help as the sea rises to swallow them up and we send troops here and there while these nations languish without any assistance.

In my estimation our current administration may be taking a very serious hit in the near future regarding its failure to control the petrochemical interests. Meanwhile back in Kiribati and Maldives, these people are losing their homes. The problem arose as unintended consequences, but we know now and our actions are converting the operative word to INTENDED.

 

[Underseer]

Underseer: I never said anything about Elvis' brain or whatever. There was top level cover up of torture and kidnapping and murder. There was destruction of the infrastructure of several nations. There was no WMD. There was insane war profiteering by people within the administration. Let us, the American public know the details so we can take measures to stop doing as we are still doing...attempting to dominate the world.

What about the global warming coverup? This is not Elvis' brain. This demands action and instead, our lying leaders just keep pushing for more chaotic foolhardy conflict.

Sure, but you believe 9/11 was an inside job, right?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What if release of the information is actually vital to national security? And what about criminal activity? Is it proper for the president to classify something that shows the he, or someone he wants to protect, is guilty of a serious criminal offense?

I deny that it is impossible to determine if something is vital to national security simply by reading it. How then, do we decide to classify anything? Is the process entirely arbitrary? Then that should be changed. Lots of classified information is de-classified after a period of time and with bin Laden and the and Bush out of office, it's hard to imagine how it could impact negatively on national security. But even if it did, it would be the job of those who would keep it classified to make the case that there are circumstances that require it even though those circumstances don't meet the eye.

Anything that is the product of intelligence data or anything classified is deemed classified by default. It's only declassified after a review that evaluates whether any data in it has intelligence implications. (For example, the "he likes donuts for breakfast" bit above has no intelligence implications if the source that leaked the data has already been exposed.) Alternately, it's declassified after enough time has passed that nothing from that far back matters. (For example, when the Air Force released the information that the Roswell "saucer" was really the crash of a high altitude instrument package that they had known about from day 1.)

Just because you can't imagine how it could impact security doesn't mean there's no way it could matter--so long as the source is in place everything that comes from the source, no matter how trivial, has to be protected. You can be sure the other side is going over every fact and figuring out who knew it in an effort to pin down the leak.

(And note that you can't just do "he likes donuts for breakfast"--the important thing is we know what he likes to eat, not whatever that food might be.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As I said in the message you quoted it's impossible to tell if a report contains anything that jeopardizes security by reading it.

I do agree there are problems with classifying embarrassing things but that's no reason to open the floodgates. Unless you know the source of every fact in the report you simply can't make the call.

There is every reason to open the floodgates. You are protecting war criminals. It really doesn't matter too much what country they are from. Let them defend themselves. You spend altogether too much of your time making sure that nobody can make any waves and change the scope of public knowledge. Your belief that government has to be secret means you accept insincere politicians and liars as long as everything goes smoothly for the elite. That makes plenty of room for swindlers and corrupt officials and war profiteers.

1) You don't know whether war criminals are being protected. I have yet to see anything to suggest that Bush is guilty of anything more than gross incompetence.

2) Even if a war criminal walks because of security that very well might be the right choice. Leak source identities and not only do you get the source murdered but you make others reluctant to become sources.

3) Nothing says there can't be an investigation by those cleared to look at the data.

 

[Underseer]

What if release of the information is actually vital to national security? And what about criminal activity? Is it proper for the president to classify something that shows the he, or someone he wants to protect, is guilty of a serious criminal offense?

I deny that it is impossible to determine if something is vital to national security simply by reading it. How then, do we decide to classify anything? Is the process entirely arbitrary? Then that should be changed. Lots of classified information is de-classified after a period of time and with bin Laden and the and Bush out of office, it's hard to imagine how it could impact negatively on national security. But even if it did, it would be the job of those who would keep it classified to make the case that there are circumstances that require it even though those circumstances don't meet the eye.

Anything that is the product of intelligence data or anything classified is deemed classified by default. It's only declassified after a review that evaluates whether any data in it has intelligence implications. (For example, the "he likes donuts for breakfast" bit above has no intelligence implications if the source that leaked the data has already been exposed.) Alternately, it's declassified after enough time has passed that nothing from that far back matters. (For example, when the Air Force released the information that the Roswell "saucer" was really the crash of a high altitude instrument package that they had known about from day 1.)

Just because you can't imagine how it could impact security doesn't mean there's no way it could matter--so long as the source is in place everything that comes from the source, no matter how trivial, has to be protected. You can be sure the other side is going over every fact and figuring out who knew it in an effort to pin down the leak.

(And note that you can't just do "he likes donuts for breakfast"--the important thing is we know what he likes to eat, not whatever that food might be.)

Don't you just love the fact that libertarians openly argue that democratic governments should keep as much information from the people as possible, while simultaneously claiming to be in favor of freedom and against big government?

Seriously, Loren. Why not just move to a police state where all the secrets are kept from you all the time. I mean, that would make you even safer, wouldn't it?

 

[thief of fire]

Underseer: I never said anything about Elvis' brain or whatever. There was top level cover up of torture and kidnapping and murder. There was destruction of the infrastructure of several nations. There was no WMD. There was insane war profiteering by people within the administration. Let us, the American public know the details so we can take measures to stop doing as we are still doing...attempting to dominate the world.

What about the global warming coverup? This is not Elvis' brain. This demands action and instead, our lying leaders just keep pushing for more chaotic foolhardy conflict.

Sure, but you believe 9/11 was an inside job, right?

Stop trying to poison the well.

 

[purple_kathryn]

We used to turn a blind eye to IRA fundraising but these days we are trying to crack down.

The Provisional IRA, for whom the US used to 'turn a blind eye to fundraising', ceased terrorist operations in 1997, and disbanded in 2005.

I am sure the people, politicians and armed forces of the UK, who were the Provos main targets, are glad to hear that you are trying to crack down 'these days'

There are still Republican terrorist organisations still operating in Northern Ireland (not on the same scale and not with a great amount of success - although I couldn't comment as to how they are being funded)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/12/man-held-dublin-car-bomb-giro-ditalia (12/05/14)

Bomb discovered hidden in Belfast-registered car outside hotel hours ... Car bomb found in Dublin thought to be for Northern Ireland attack.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-25372680 (14/12/13)

Belfast Cathedral Quarter bomb 'could have killed'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-25085035 (25/11/13)

60kg car bomb partially explodes in Belfast city centre

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20164370 (1/11/12)

David Black, 52, from Cookstown was attacked on the M1 motorway at 07:30 GMT as he drove to HMP Maghaberry. Dissident republicans are being blamed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anything that is the product of intelligence data or anything classified is deemed classified by default. It's only declassified after a review that evaluates whether any data in it has intelligence implications. (For example, the "he likes donuts for breakfast" bit above has no intelligence implications if the source that leaked the data has already been exposed.) Alternately, it's declassified after enough time has passed that nothing from that far back matters. (For example, when the Air Force released the information that the Roswell "saucer" was really the crash of a high altitude instrument package that they had known about from day 1.)

Just because you can't imagine how it could impact security doesn't mean there's no way it could matter--so long as the source is in place everything that comes from the source, no matter how trivial, has to be protected. You can be sure the other side is going over every fact and figuring out who knew it in an effort to pin down the leak.

(And note that you can't just do "he likes donuts for breakfast"--the important thing is we know what he likes to eat, not whatever that food might be.)

Don't you just love the fact that libertarians openly argue that democratic governments should keep as much information from the people as possible, while simultaneously claiming to be in favor of freedom and against big government?

Seriously, Loren. Why not just move to a police state where all the secrets are kept from you all the time. I mean, that would make you even safer, wouldn't it?

I'm simply describing reality. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it false.

 

[empty]

Anything that is the product of intelligence data or anything classified is deemed classified by default. It's only declassified after a review that evaluates whether any data in it has intelligence implications. (For example, the "he likes donuts for breakfast" bit above has no intelligence implications if the source that leaked the data has already been exposed.) Alternately, it's declassified after enough time has passed that nothing from that far back matters. (For example, when the Air Force released the information that the Roswell "saucer" was really the crash of a high altitude instrument package that they had known about from day 1.)

Just because you can't imagine how it could impact security doesn't mean there's no way it could matter--so long as the source is in place everything that comes from the source, no matter how trivial, has to be protected. You can be sure the other side is going over every fact and figuring out who knew it in an effort to pin down the leak.

(And note that you can't just do "he likes donuts for breakfast"--the important thing is we know what he likes to eat, not whatever that food might be.)

Don't you just love the fact that libertarians openly argue that democratic governments should keep as much information from the people as possible, while simultaneously claiming to be in favor of freedom and against big government?

Seriously, Loren. Why not just move to a police state where all the secrets are kept from you all the time. I mean, that would make you even safer, wouldn't it?

I'm simply describing reality. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it false.

this place has heard much ov lorens 'descriptions ov reality'

"9/11 Commission chairman Thomas Keane has previously called for the declassification of the secret 28 pages of the Congressional 9/11 Inquiry, and said that 60-70% of what was classified shouldn’t have been classified in the first place.
...
9/11 Commission Co-Chair Lee Hamilton agrees.

And so does 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer.
...
And others who have seen the classified 9/11 materials agree that we can’t move forward with an effective security program until the American people know what’s in the classified materials.
...
The 9/11 Commissioners publicly expressed anger at cover ups and obstructions of justice by the government into a real 9/11 investigation:
...
No wonder the Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Bob Graham - and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a “permanent 9/11 commission” or a new 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it."
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/911-commission-chair-declassify-everything.html

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Lets not take the situation out of context empty.

We know the W Admin tried to not have a commission, but unlike some Chicken Littles out there want to believe because it is easier for them to fear a windmill government, the W Admin did so because they so obviously dropped the ball on terrorism. Additional issues came about regarding support from Saudis, but that went into the public domain with the bin Laden video that popped up (or at least the unedited version), when they chatted about how and what happened.

 

[empty]

Lets not take the situation out of context empty.

presenting the facts is taking things out ov context to you?

We know the W Admin tried to not have a commission, but unlike some Chicken Littles out there want to believe because it is easier for them to fear a windmill government, the W Admin did so because they so obviously dropped the ball on terrorism.

if by dropped the ball you mean worked in concert with mossad and the like

Additional issues came about regarding support from Saudis, but that went into the public domain with the bin Laden video that popped up (or at least the unedited version), when they chatted about how and what happened.

which bin laden video would that be, the fifth or so after he repeatedly denied responsibility and had a markedly different face?

 

[boneyard bill]

What if release of the information is actually vital to national security? And what about criminal activity? Is it proper for the president to classify something that shows the he, or someone he wants to protect, is guilty of a serious criminal offense?

I deny that it is impossible to determine if something is vital to national security simply by reading it. How then, do we decide to classify anything? Is the process entirely arbitrary? Then that should be changed. Lots of classified information is de-classified after a period of time and with bin Laden and the and Bush out of office, it's hard to imagine how it could impact negatively on national security. But even if it did, it would be the job of those who would keep it classified to make the case that there are circumstances that require it even though those circumstances don't meet the eye.

Anything that is the product of intelligence data or anything classified is deemed classified by default. It's only declassified after a review that evaluates whether any data in it has intelligence implications. (For example, the "he likes donuts for breakfast" bit above has no intelligence implications if the source that leaked the data has already been exposed.) Alternately, it's declassified after enough time has passed that nothing from that far back matters. (For example, when the Air Force released the information that the Roswell "saucer" was really the crash of a high altitude instrument package that they had known about from day 1.)

Just because you can't imagine how it could impact security doesn't mean there's no way it could matter--so long as the source is in place everything that comes from the source, no matter how trivial, has to be protected. You can be sure the other side is going over every fact and figuring out who knew it in an effort to pin down the leak.

(And note that you can't just do "he likes donuts for breakfast"--the important thing is we know what he likes to eat, not whatever that food might be.)

Documents are classified according to the source of the information. If we intercepted information that was available in the NY Times, it still gets classified. I know. I used to work for Army Intelligence. But there is no reason for this. We can easily declassify the information without disclosing the method by which we attained it. So there really need to be better standards for deciding whether or not something ought to be classified or how much of it should be classified.

But none of this applies to the 28 pages. They were part of the 911 Commission Report. A deliberate decision was made to classify these pages. It wasn't a part of a classified document that was automatically classified due to its source. It was deliberately classified due to its content.

 

[Sabine Grant]

TFT Moderation team.

 

[empty]

This thread has been derailed towards a discussion which does not belong in the Political Discussion Forum.

the fact that 9/11 was an govt abetted inside job, false flag event is a political discussion
gotta try to hide the truth, seeing as no one can refute the evidence presented, just like on the previous board

 

[Sabine Grant]

TFT Moderation Team.