Bad faith

[noise]

1) The public is expected to accept warrantless surveillance, the Patriot Act, the unitary executive theory of absolute power, etc. in order to prevent another 9/11.

2) The officials who sold these policies haven't accounted for their pre-9/11 conduct.

3) The government has kept key 9/11 evidence secret. They have kept the details of the illegal CT policies secret. Thus, much of the justification is based on nothing but authoritarianism, the notion that public officials ALWAYS act in good faith and would only champion illegal tactics if they felt such tactics were needed.

Where is the good faith?

[wildbilln864]

1. good points. thank you. nt

[noise]

2. It's absurd

Tenet declared war on al Qaeda in 1998. In the lead up to 9/11 he claimed he was freaked out about a possible attack. Yet at the very same time his CTC withheld intel about al Qaeda operatives already implicated in the murder of US sailors (the Cole attack). This contradiction is insane. Yet we should believe this guy with no honor and no respect for murdered citizens should be considered credible when he claimed CIA must employ torture? That is nauseating.

Hayden refused to get FISA warrants or notify the FBI so they could get the warrants. According to James Bamford, Hayden was overly worried about violating civil liberties. This is absurd. It makes no sense at all because the FISA court was designed to protect civil liberties. Furthermore, we are talking about al Qaeda operatives. No intel official in the world would worry about civil liberty violations in such an instance. It's just an outrageous excuse that shows Hayden's contempt for the public. Yet we are to believe that Hayden is credible when he claims warrantless spying is absolutely needed to prevent future attacks? The guy isn't credible.