And if we are attacked?

Fledermaus · Feb 11, 2017

JumpinJack said:
"Actionable." You can't have details, if you don't request them. You can't have details if you don't coordinate information from the various agencies, have meetings with them, ask for information.

Bush did nothing. All year. He and his administration were ignoring terrorism and focusing on the Russian cold war, instead. An almost total disregard to terrorism, despite having been told numerous times by Clark about the seriousness of the terrorist threat by Al Qaeda. It boggles the mind that the administration disregarded such dire warnings.

Bush is a nice guy. But Cheney was running the country at that time, and Cheney was concerned mainly about tax cuts and the energy policy (He'd been a big whig at Halliburton).

They sure had a sense of urgency about oil and tax cuts. They got on that right away. No delays.

Request details ABOUT WHAT?

Once again... Are you implying the CSI, NSA, FBI, etc. decided to not investigate since Bush was not reading his daily briefings?

Since there WAS daily briefings that tells us the intelligence community WAS still investigating... There was no detail because there was no detail....

The FBI was investigating up to Zero Hour. The NSA was monitoring all the time. CIA, et al were all still TRYING to figure out what was going on.

But all the kings horses and all the kings men still could not create a theory out of nothingness....

Yarff · Feb 11, 2017

MaggieD said:
As I posted in another thread, I'm completely flummoxed by the district court's handling of their decision process re enforcing the temporary travel ban. The language giving the POTUS the power to issue the EO is crystal clear. He has that power, there's no question in my mind. But the court is weighing whether or not the temp ban is NECESSARY. That's not their job. They don't get security briefings.

If there is a major attack in our country while this bull**** partisan crap is going on, who is to blame?

It's brazenly partisan and unconstitutional Left Wing judicial activism.

It'll never hold up in the SC. They don't care. They're just trying to be disruptive for its own sake.

matchlight · Feb 11, 2017

Yarff said:
It's brazenly partisan and unconstitutional Left Wing judicial activism.

It'll never hold up in the SC. They don't care. They're just trying to be disruptive for its own sake.

I wish I were as sure as you about how the current Supreme Court would vote on this . I think it could easily uphold the decision invalidating this executive order by a 5-3 vote, with Kennedy voting with the usual suspects.

The Ninth Circuit decision never even mentioned the statute President Trump's order relied on as authority. And that statute very clearly denies federal courts jurisdiction to hear challenges to an order like this one. The Ninth Circuit has unconstitutionally intruded on the authority of the other two branches, and President Trump should uphold the Constitution's separation of powers by ignoring its lawless ruling. The exclusion of aliens who have not entered the U.S. is a perfect example of an issue that is, to use a big word, "nonjusticiable." That means no court has power to decide cases which raise this issue, because the Constitution gives the two political branches--i.e. Congress and the President--plenary power to exclude aliens. The Supreme Court has made that clear in case after case.

Anyone who doubts that Congress has power to restrict or even remove the jurisdiction of lower federal courts might want to consider that they are not created by the Constitution. They only exist because Congress, exercising its constitutional authority, saw fit to create them by enacting laws. Researching the phrase "Madisonian Compromise" may be helpful. It may also help to read what the second sentence of Article III, sec. 2, cl. 2 says about Congress' power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. And except for certain fairly unusual matters (these are listed in Article III, sec. 2, cl. 1) in which the Court has original jurisdiction, almost all its jurisdiction--i.e. its power to hear and decide cases--is appellate. Anyone who imagines that Congress cannot trim the Court when it wants to--and hard--should read Ex Parte McCardle. Very short case, fascinating back story, stunning result.

Yarff · Feb 11, 2017

matchlight said:
I wish I were as sure as you about how the Supreme Court would vote on this. I think it could easily uphold the decision invalidating this executive order by a 5-3 vote, with Kennedy voting with the usual suspects.

The Ninth Circuit decision never even mentioned the statute President Trump's order relied on as authority. And that statute very clearly denies federal courts jurisdiction to hear challenges to an order like this one. The Ninth Circuit has unconstitutionally intruded on the authority of the other two branches, and President Trump should uphold the Constitution's separation of powers by ignoring its lawless ruling. The exclusion of aliens who have not entered the U.S. is a perfect example of an issue that is, to use a big word, "nonjusticiable." That means no court has power to decide cases which raise this issue, because the Constitution gives the two political branches--i.e. Congress and the President--plenary power to exclude aliens.

It's a sad day when irrational emotion and cynical partisan grandstanding take precedence over both the Constitution and the legitimacy of our government.

iguanaman · Feb 11, 2017

Fledermaus said:
What ACTIONABLE warnings were there?

Bush could have warned the airlines of a possible plot and had security tightened. But more importantly he could have told the CIA to pull out all stops to find the plotters. Instead he told them, he did not want to hear about any plots that did not involve Saddam Hussein and totally ignored all the warnings.

Now the next Republican to be President, Trump has already passed the blame on any future attack and that should be worrisome to all. Ask yourself how Obama avoided having any major attack by foreign radicals for 8 years, yet Trump claims an un-Constitutional ban on certain countries is need to prevent attacks while he is in office. It sounds like he is covering himself for some future event if you ask me. I don't feel safe with any Republican after the mess Bush made of our security. I beleive we must make it clear to Trump that he will be impeached for treason if he allows a major attack like Bush did.

Eric7216 · Feb 11, 2017

Moot said:
I give you credit for being the first person to notice besides me.
I only heard about the attacks on the mosques in Canada and Texas. Was there one in Indiana, too?
I'm not a big fan of Obama's drone program...but most of the bombs dropped in the name of the WoT were in N. Pakistan and Yemen. The former is not on the list...and yet that is where OBL and Al Qaeda found refuge after they were run out of Afghanistan. NTL...Obama didn't ban any of those seven countries on the list...instead he wanted more scrutiny on British VISAs who had visited those countries. So why isn't Britain on the list?

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.c...ne-casualty-numbers-fraction-recorded-bureau/

I normally would not comment on something like emollients clause but then I googled it and got interesting results. Many of us make mistakes like that.
Forgot about the one in Texas. BBC reporting on mosque attacks in the US:
Paris attacks: Mosques attacked in US and Canada - BBC News

Discovered TBIJ awhile back. I remember reading 7-8 years ago about 2,500 or so civilians killed in aerial attacks. Wild fluctuations. The same thing happened in Kosovo in which the US claim c. 256 civilians killed and the Serbians claimed c. 8,000. I am not a fan of drones or aerial bombings, especially as the main form of offense.

matchlight · Feb 11, 2017

Yarff said:
It's a sad day when irrational emotion and cynical partisan grandstanding take precedence over both the Constitution and the legitimacy of our government.

That's true. It's even sadder when the American people tolerate an outrage like this. All four of those judges should be impeached. Their decisions should be denounced by every American who respects the rule of law, and we should urge the President to ignore their flagrantly unconstitutional intrusion on his power. He might do that best by waiting until Judge Gorsuch is confirmed, then issuing another executive order, having the relevant agencies start carrying it out immediately, and ignoring any court that tries to stop him.

Winchester · Feb 12, 2017

MaggieD said:
As I posted in another thread, I'm completely flummoxed by the district court's handling of their decision process re enforcing the temporary travel ban. The language giving the POTUS the power to issue the EO is crystal clear. He has that power, there's no question in my mind. But the court is weighing whether or not the temp ban is NECESSARY. That's not their job. They don't get security briefings.

If there is a major attack in our country while this bull**** partisan crap is going on, who is to blame?

Well I'm not sure the president pays that much attention during them.

Fledermaus · Feb 12, 2017

iguanaman said:
Bush could have warned the airlines of a possible plot and had security tightened. But more importantly he could have told the CIA to pull out all stops to find the plotters. Instead he told them, he did not want to hear about any plots that did not involve Saddam Hussein and totally ignored all the warnings.

Now the next Republican to be President, Trump has already passed the blame on any future attack and that should be worrisome to all. Ask yourself how Obama avoided having any major attack by foreign radicals for 8 years, yet Trump claims an un-Constitutional ban on certain countries is need to prevent attacks while he is in office. It sounds like he is covering himself for some future event if you ask me. I don't feel safe with any Republican after the mess Bush made of our security. I beleive we must make it clear to Trump that he will be impeached for treason if he allows a major attack like Bush did.

Where in the briefings were airliners as weapons discussed? Nowhere.

And do you have citation for the claim that he did not want the hear any non-Saddam related terrorist plots?

The remainder is "Blah, blah Trump blah blah" that has nothing to do with Bush.

iguanaman · Feb 12, 2017

Fledermaus said:
Where in the briefings were airliners as weapons discussed? Nowhere.

And do you have citation for the claim that he did not want the hear any non-Saddam related terrorist plots?

The remainder is "Blah, blah Trump blah blah" that has nothing to do with Bush.

Here's more "blah blah blah" that you won't like. But it doesn't mean it is not true. You can consider yourself warned. Trump may try the same thing.

President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.

The warning came in a secret briefing that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, 2001. A report by a joint Congressional committee last year alluded to a ''closely held intelligence report'' that month about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda, and the official confirmed an account by The Associated Press on Friday saying that the report was in fact part of the president's briefing in Crawford.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/us/august-01-brief-is-said-to-warn-of-attack-plans.html

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.

The Bush White House Was Deaf to 9/11 Warnings - The New York Times

randel · Feb 12, 2017

MaggieD said:
Stock answer, Serenity. You've not heard of negligence?

serenity is correct....at the very least, trump was very ham handed in how he went about this travel ban, and while those who are for the ban, say trump can do it, the 'blanket ban' affected more than those he wanted to 'weed' out....those here legally, with appropriate paperwork, were being denied re-entry into the country, and those with plans to travel outside the country, again, here legally, and with appropriate paperwork, were in fear of leaving because they might not be let back in.....and then those who were being detained in airports , and denied access to an attorney, only added fuel to the fire....trump, and rightly so, received quite a bit of flack for this..........we can lock this country down, we can crank up the security, but if you really want to do some damage, you can find a way, even with the best security measures...it comes down to exactly how much freedom are we willing to give up for the illusion of security?

Fledermaus · Feb 12, 2017

iguanaman said:
Here's more "blah blah blah" that you won't like. But it doesn't mean it is not true. You can consider yourself warned. Trump may try the same thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/us/august-01-brief-is-said-to-warn-of-attack-plans.html

The Bush White House Was Deaf to 9/11 Warnings - The New York Times

Lets try again.

Airliners as weapons. Nothing there.

As far as hijacking airliners. Read the rest of the article and ask yourself what should have been done given an uncorroborated report....

Bush: OK, we don't know when, where or how these attacks will occur... So get out there and stop them.

iguanaman · Feb 12, 2017

Fledermaus said:
Lets try again.

Airliners as weapons. Nothing there.

As far as hijacking airliners. Read the rest of the article and ask yourself what should have been done given an uncorroborated report....

Bush: OK, we don't know when, where or how these attacks will occur... So get out there and stop them.

If you read what I posted you would know what SHOULD have been done. But what is more important is how Bush's behavior before 911 may portend what Trump might do. They both were/are the most unpopular new Presidents ever, both elected by popular vote minorities under suspicions of corruption. Bush raised his approval to 90% after 911. What would Trump do for a 90% approval? He has even already passed the blame to the Judicial. It is quite scary if you think about it.

Fledermaus · Feb 12, 2017

iguanaman said:
If you read what I posted you would know what SHOULD have been done. But what is more important is how Bush's behavior before 911 may portend what Trump might do. They both were/are the most unpopular new Presidents ever, both elected by popular vote minorities under suspicions of corruption. Bush raised his approval to 90% after 911. What would Trump do for a 90% approval? He has even already passed the blame to the Judicial. It is quite scary if you think about it.

Bush should have put out a vague alert about a possible attack that no one knew when or where it would occur nor was known the manner of the attack.

Or he could do what you want which was ______________ ?

Blah, blah Trump blah balh.