Executive Branch Learns from Saddam

[Dreadsox]

[Q]ASHINGTON, July 8 ? The federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks said today that its work was being hampered by the failure of executive branch agencies, especially the Pentagon and the Justice Department, to respond quickly to requests for documents and testimony.[/Q]

Iraq was requested by the UN last fall to produce documents. Our governement accused them of stalling. Why aren't they producing the documents? Isn't it appropriate to want to work to prevent it from happening again?


[Q]The panel also said the failure of the Bush administration to allow officials to be interviewed without the presence of government colleagues could impede its investigation, with the commission's chairman suggesting today that the situation amounted to "intimidation" of the witnesses.[/Q]

The US GOvernement protested and protested that it was unfair to allow Iraqi government officials into the rooms when we interviewed their scientists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/08/politics/08CND-TERR.html?ex=1058328000&en=9e034091002cddd2&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

 

[sulawesigirl4]

apparently what is good for the goose is definitely not good for the gander.

 

[STING2]

"Iraq was requested by the UN last fall to produce documents."

Iraq was requested by the UN in March of 1991 to produce documents to aid in the disarmament process.

Fast forward to March 2003, and this process is still going on. Can you say, STALLING. I'm sure the men and women at the Pentagon would love to hear that they are operating and learning from the regime of Saddam.

"The US GOvernement protested and protested that it was unfair to allow Iraqi government officials into the rooms when we interviewed their scientists."

After 24 years of a Man that murdered 1.7 million people and was willing to cut off limbs, take out eyes of any family member if someone said the wrong thing, its easy to see how it would be impossible to have anyone truthfully talk.

Saddam has family members on the chopping block ready to become cold cuts if any Scientists says the wrong thing. The Executive Branch has the responsibility of preventing sensitive US military and security information from being leaked to a media that believes it has the right to know anything, no matter the costs to US troops or civilian lives.

 

[Dreadsox]

SO it is alright that they are not producing documents?

SO it is alright, that people are not allowed to be interviewed without someone hanging over their shoulders?

My sarcasm aside, it is pretty disturbing that we are coming up on two years later and for some reason, we can't even probe what happened?

It is bullshit. It leads to people thinking, like the Kennedy Assasination, that there is a cover-up, when many times there is none. It has been how many years since the Kennedy Assasination, and Oswald's CIA FILE is still sealed!!!!!!

So please, don't cloud the issue by attacking my "SARCASM" over the situation.....The real issue is that there very well may be a cover-up going on. The real issue is that with an election coming up, the people have the right to know.

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]"In any investigation in which federal employees are interviewed, it is standard practice to have another agency representative present for the benefit of the witnesses and to help facilitate the investigation."[/Q]

This is the statement in response to the Republican Chairman's criticism of having people hanging over the witnesses shoudler.

The statement says NOTHING about protecting sources...ect.

 

[STING2]

"SO it is alright that they are not producing documents?" There have been several documents that have come out about one thing or the other since 9/11.



"SO it is alright, that people are not allowed to be interviewed without someone hanging over their shoulders?"

It is and I hope that does not change when sensitive intelligence that effects national security is involved.

"My sarcasm aside, it is pretty disturbing that we are coming up on two years later and for some reason, we can't even probe what happened?"

"It is bullshit"

Or more accurately thats BS. People have been investigating nearly all aspects of 9/11 for nearly two years, one way or the other.

"It leads to people thinking, like the Kennedy Assasination, that there is a cover-up, when many times there is none. It has been how many years since the Kennedy Assasination, and Oswald's CIA FILE is still sealed!!!!!!"

I'll take an Oliver Stone movie any day over any unwise investigation that releases sensitive intelligence to the public. Investigate, but do it slowly and carefully.

"The real issue is that there very well may be a cover-up going on."

I know those that oppose Bush would like to think so.

"The real issue is that with an election coming up, the people have the right to know."

the people have a right that their government do an investigation properly and not rush because certain people are praying for a campaign issue to come out of this in 2004.

"This is the statement in response to the Republican Chairman's criticism of having people hanging over the witnesses shoudler."

"The statement says NOTHING about protecting sources...ect."

I wasn't refering to that statement.

 

[Dreadsox]

I am not sure you read the article:

[Q]Under the law creating the bipartisan, 10-member panel last year, the commission, which met for the first time in January, is required to complete its investigation by next May. "While thousands of documents are flowing in ? some in boxes and some digitized ? most of the documents we need are still to come," the statement said. "Time is slipping by."[/Q]

Slow and careful, with less than a year to go.

 

[melon]

It is and I hope that does not change when sensitive intelligence that effects national security is involved.

So would Saddam have been allowed to use this excuse?

Bush has more than abused this one. And how convenient. It means he can keep things under the rug, while trying to force his will on other nations. I guess "consistency" isn't in the American vocabulary.

Melon

 

[Klaus]

"In any investigation in which federal employees are interviewed, it is standard practice to have another agency representative present for the benefit of the witnesses and to help facilitate the investigation."

Well no matter what's standard - you can't expect to find out anything if another representative of the gov. is in the room and the government wants to hide something.

Klaus

 

[verte76]

This irks me. They need to give the information to the right people. This is what Nixon did in the Watergate scandal. It just doesn't look good at all.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

"Slow and careful, with less than a year to go."

Sorry, this investigation is about trying to find what may have gone wrong and preventing it from happening in the future. Its not designed to supply the democratic party with campaign issues for the 2004 election.

Melon,


"So would Saddam have been allowed to use this excuse?"

"Bush has more than abused this one. And how convenient. It means he can keep things under the rug, while trying to force his will on other nations. I guess "consistency" isn't in the American vocabulary."

Your camparing Apples and Oranges. Saddam is a war criminal guilty of multiple violations. Saddam himself signed agreements which he agreed to comply with under all circumstances.

Bush is simply the current president of the USA and has not done any thing criminal at all. There is intelligence about US Military forces, Intelligence operations, and other things, that regardless of which presidential administration is in power, cannot be leaked in any way shape or form, to the public, there by compromising the lives of US soldiers, CIA operatives and other informents, intelligence gathering capabilities, and in the worse case senerio, the lives of US citizens.

The USA stopped its advance into Iraq in 1991, because Saddam agreed to multiple conditions in a ceacefire agreement. Had Saddam not agreed to the conditions, he would have been taken out in 1991. Thats the price he payed for his criminal invasion of Kuwait and past crimes he had committed.

So the answer to your first question is, no of course not, and no it is not inconsistent either. Try looking at the situation and context before making such comparisons.

Klaus,

"Well no matter what's standard - you can't expect to find out anything if another representative of the gov. is in the room and the government wants to hide something."

Thats not true at all. But it is true that if the government does not work hard to prevent sensitive security information from finding its way into the media, it will happen, hurting US and global security and perhaps compromising the lives of many people.

 

[melon]

Dreadsox,
Your camparing Apples and Oranges. Saddam is a war criminal guilty of multiple violations. Saddam himself signed agreements which he agreed to comply with under all circumstances.

Well, how can we tell whether or not Bush has done something criminal if he has the right to suppress all the evidence?

Melon

 

[Klaus]

melon:
"..Don't talk out of time
Don't think
Don't worry
Everything's just fine
Just fine "

Don't even think that the emperor might be wrong )

 

[STING2]

Melon,

"Well, how can we tell whether or not Bush has done something criminal if he has the right to suppress all the evidence? "

I never said Bush has the right to suppress all evidence. I said the military and intelligence services have a right to insure that other sensitive information is not leaked to the public. CIA agents, the way and means with which US intelligence services gather their intelligence, cannot be compromised if we want to prevent the next 9/11.

 

[Klaus]

Melon,

"Well, how can we tell whether or not Bush has done something criminal if he has the right to suppress all the evidence? "

I never said Bush has the right to suppress all evidence. I said the military and intelligence services have a right to insure that other sensitive information is not leaked to the public. CIA agents, the way and means with which US intelligence services gather their intelligence, cannot be compromised if we want to prevent the next 9/11.

You think that the people who work in these institutions would talk about things which could be a threat to their colleagues as soon as there is no other person in the room? Or do you think that the investigators would give these informations to "everybody who's interested"?

If yes, these employes are a security hole for your country anyway.

The problem is: the US was intended to be unter control of the civilists, secret services and military work for them. If they become a own country in the country (follow the laws of their organisation instead of the laws of their country) democracy is in danger.

Klaus