0
   

Clinton Lawyers: Mohamed Atta Off-Limits

 
 
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2005 03:19 pm
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/12/111547.shtml

Quote:

Clinton Lawyers: Mohamed Atta Off-Limits

A year before the 9/11 attacks, Clinton administration lawyers told a group of military intelligence officers that information they had developed on 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta could not be shared with the FBI, saying of Atta himself: "You can't even touch him - it doesn't matter what information you have."

Rep. Curt Weldon, who helped develop the military intelligence group code-named "Able Danger," delivered the bombshell revelation in an interview Thursday with WABC Radio host Sean Hannity.

Story Continues Below


WELDON: In September of 2000 we tried on three occasions to take the information we had developed and pass it along to the FBI so they could follow up and take action against this [al-Qaida] cell and perhaps bring in Atta and question him and do whatever else was necessary.

Three times we were turned down by lawyers in the administration.

HANNITY: We're talking about lawyers in the Clinton administration?

WELDON: Yes, it was the Clinton administration. Lawyers said there were two reasons why you can't do that. And they even put stickies over the face of Mohamed Atta on this chart they had. They said: "He's here legally. He's either got a green card or he's got a visa. So you can't even touch him - it doesn't matter what information you have." [END OF EXCERPT]

Moments later, Weldon said he was determined to find out who it was who ultimately gave the order to protect the lead 9/11 hijacker.

WELDON: The American people need to have answers. They need to have answers about who made the decision to stop our military intelligence from sharing information with the FBI, and how high up the ladder that went.

Did it stop at DoD? Or was the Justice Department involved in that decision? Or was the White House involved in that decision? [END OF EXCERPT]
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 834 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2005 03:43 pm
According to CNN it was the Pentagon who rejected the intellegence from "Able Danger."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/10/9.11.hijackers.ap/

Quote:
Weldon said that in September 2000 Able Danger recommended that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI "so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists." However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation because they said Atta and the others were in the country legally, so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2005 05:08 pm
revel wrote:
According to CNN it was the Pentagon who rejected the intellegence from "Able Danger."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/10/9.11.hijackers.ap/

Quote:
Weldon said that in September 2000 Able Danger recommended that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI "so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists." However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation because they said Atta and the others were in the country legally, so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.


Regardless of who did it does the Patriot Act now prevent the same sharing?

If Clinton's admin did do this it really isn't surprising. They did just about the same thing with bin Laden when he was offered to us several times
.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2005 09:30 pm
According to the CNN article there was no reason not share the information since Atta was not a citizen but someone here on visa.

Quote:
If the team did identify Atta and the others, it's unclear why the information wasn't forwarded. The prohibition against sharing intelligence on "U.S. persons" should not have applied since they were in the country on visas and did not have permanent resident status.


But one thing I am curious about is that even if this was one of Clinton supposed goof ups, wouldn't Bush be just as responsible after he took he over?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2005 09:32 pm
revel wrote:
According to the CNN article there was no reason not share the information since Atta was not a citizen but someone here on visa.

Quote:
If the team did identify Atta and the others, it's unclear why the information wasn't forwarded. The prohibition against sharing intelligence on "U.S. persons" should not have applied since they were in the country on visas and did not have permanent resident status.


But one thing I am curious about is that even if this was one of Clinton supposed goof ups, wouldn't Bush be just as responsible after he took he over?


Don't try and push the blame off on Bush. Clinotn made the call.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2005 09:34 pm
Baldimo wrote:
If Clinton's admin did do this it really isn't surprising. They did just about the same thing with bin Laden when he was offered to us several times.


Bullshit.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2005 09:37 pm
I am not denying or confirming anything concerning Clinton since this story is just starting and little information is out. I am just saying as the one taking over as the president of United States then it just seems to me that Bush should have followed up on Clinton's missed calls. (if one was made)
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2005 09:51 pm
kickycan wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
If Clinton's admin did do this it really isn't surprising. They did just about the same thing with bin Laden when he was offered to us several times.


Bullshit.


Well that's quite the response. Care to elaborate? Or did you post to increase your post count?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2005 10:02 pm
I don't care enough to bother. I just wanted to call bullshit on you as a public service, so that others who read this and don't know the truth will look into it instead of taking your lie at face value.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2005 10:31 pm
kickycan wrote:
I don't care enough to bother. I just wanted to call bullshit on you as a public service, so that others who read this and don't know the truth will look into it instead of taking your lie at face value.


It claims his lawyers said it couldn't have been done. He could have said tough pick him up but he didn't. As a result 9-11 is what we got. How is that a lie? If he would have been picked up his whole operation would have been brought to a screeching halt and 9-11 wouldn't have happened.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Clinton Lawyers: Mohamed Atta Off-Limits
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2022 at 07:16:57