[HN Gopher] Attorney General Barr Refuses to Release 9/11 Docume...
___________________________________________________________________
Attorney General Barr Refuses to Release 9/11 Documents to Victims'
Families
Author : AndrewBissell
Score : 74 points
Date : 2020-04-15 21:27 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.propublica.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.propublica.org)
| baybal2 wrote:
| https://s.france24.com/media/display/aa00e3a4-0eb0-11e9-818f...
| [deleted]
| fc_barnes wrote:
| Minneapolis field office memo.
| yasp wrote:
| What's this?
| voz_ wrote:
| Not sure what OC meant. Googling led me to
| https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0606/chapter1.htm
| willart4food wrote:
| > Barr says he cannot even explain why the material must stay
| secret without putting national security at risk.
| lilott8 wrote:
| I apply a bit of hyperbole here, but I'm convinced that
| "national security" is a monotonic function that will
| eventually encompass everything in the federal government.
| GCSAQCMIYI wrote:
| I wonder if he is confusing the security of the nation with the
| security of the government.
| dvtrn wrote:
| Of course he is, and frankly I wouldn't put it past this or
| even most administrations to do the same thing.
|
| Zero accountability. It's disgusting.
|
| Yes. Downvote this. For calling out the issue of
| accountability for what it is on this topic: disgusting.
|
| I dare someone to defend it convincingly. Please someone
| defend this.
| Threeve303 wrote:
| While I agree with you, I'll play devils advocate: The
| information in the documents is so bad, the damage it would
| cause would be worse than 9/11 itself.
|
| What other logical reason is there for keeping it secret
| for this long?
| fiblye wrote:
| If there's any damaging or damning info, the people
| should hear it and decide how to respond. If the truth
| has been told to us already, then nothing could be that
| much more damaging. If we were deceived from the
| beginning, then that has already resulted in massive
| amounts of damage.
|
| The only people who would lose are those within political
| organizations.
| dvtrn wrote:
| Okay, damage to whom? The American people or individuals
| with compromised interests? I am unconvinced it's not the
| latter and that's a shame akin to the reality that we
| have to find of squaring with that it took a comedian
| pleading with tears in his eyes to convince Congress to
| do the right thing and even authorize funds for first
| responder's families.
|
| Next question: More damaging than 9/11? Does that
| preclude the loss of life the morning of? To say nothing
| of the lives lost during the resulting military actions
| and regional fallout?
|
| Let end by me ask this: does _this_ of all things really
| need a devil 's advocate? The devil seems to be doing
| just fine pro se.
| resters wrote:
| The only possible explanation is that Barr is trying to hide
| wrongdoing or negligence on the part of the US government.
|
| Any information relevant to national security (such as names,
| etc.) could easily be redacted.
| wahern wrote:
| The _other_ possible explanation is that it implicates high-
| ranking Saudi officials, which would make it politically
| problematic to maintain the existing diplomatic and security
| relationship. For example, while under seal it can 't be used
| to civilly sue those officials, and it permits the DoJ to avoid
| prosecutions it might be politically forced to pursue. Such
| civil and criminal suits would disrupt the existing state of
| affairs. By keeping the secrets you keep closed the pandora's
| box of political pain, even though anyone who cares already
| knows what's in the box.
|
| People outside the government have read the files. As the
| article says, lawyers for plaintiffs in the ongoing civil suit
| saga have seen them, as presumably would the judge. If the
| documents detailed criminal activity on the part of the U.S.
| government we'd have heard something about it by now.
| shiftpgdn wrote:
| I'll be run out of town on a rail for this due to the Alex
| Jones association but what about the dancing Israelis? The
| limited amount of government documents released do genuinely
| seem to point to Israeli Mossad having some fore-knowledge of
| the attack.
| wahern wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if Mossad did. But one rejoinder
| might be that Mossad has had foreknowledge of 7 of the last
| 3 terrorist attacks. Anyhow, the plaintiffs in the civil
| case don't seem to be concerned with Israel, even after
| seeing the files.
|
| I would assume that all but the most detailed of secrets
| (e.g. specific names) have longed since leaked. Maybe
| everything has already leaked. But without the files
| they're just stories; nothing you can take into a court of
| law, and nothing that will stick in the court of public
| opinion.
| mirimir wrote:
| Yes, they were tailing the Saudis through the US. That was
| reported by Salon, within days after the attacks. But maybe
| they were helping the NSA and FBI. And perhaps someone made
| the call that it wasn't important enough to risk blowing
| some other operation.
| retox wrote:
| A popular theory is that it exposes 'allies' of the US as
| complicit. Which allies those are depends on whose theory you
| subscribe to.
| mirimir wrote:
| If we assume that Al-Qaeda was behind the attack, it's hard
| to imagine how high-ranking Saudis _weren 't_ involved. Given
| what we know about Saudi funding of Al-Qaeda.
|
| Also, given what we know about CIA funding of Al-Qaeda, it's
| not a huge stretch to suspect US involvement. Or at least, a
| bungled entrapment or outright rogue operation.
|
| It's hard to guess what US allies might be involved. Israel
| is a popular guess. Especially given its oddly close
| relationship with the Saudis, and its entanglement with US
| intelligence agencies. And then there's the fact that Mossad
| agents were trailing the Saudi terrorists for some time
| before the attacks.
|
| But then, it could literally be anyone. And the Israelis and
| Saudis might have been framed.
| beepboopbeep wrote:
| The man's credibility is long gone.
| lpah4all wrote:
| Who the fuck would downvote this?
|
| It is established fact.
|
| Oh, that's right. It's 2020 and the Internet has no shortage of
| ideological idiots and information saboteurs. Talk about a
| thorny problem for a board like this.
| kencausey wrote:
| I have no problem with the statement. But as a HackerNews
| comment it is far too reductionist. At the very least, in my
| opinion, it should have been accompanied by at least
| mentioning supporting information if not actual citations.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-04-15 23:00 UTC)