Protocol changed june 2001 and restored after 9/11. Why?

The link you posted (when I asked for your source) says something contrary to the facts. Would you like to recant that link?

 

What part?

 

Start with the part I quoted. For full understanding, read the entire document.

 

<Kings English> May I advise you...</King's English>

Protip: The last time a few members in this forum pointed out that a poster here used another name in a different forum/s, suspensions were handed out.

I speak of what I know, considering I was one of those suspended. This was based on hard evidence btw....(which was removed by the mods).

Carry on.

 

The protocol WAS CHANGED. Why?

 

To over-rule a regulation that obstructed a quick response.

 

Thank you for being honest and having good common sense.. I have a difficult time having people acknowledge this very important principle for the SECDEF.

 

Still not seeing it dude.

 

Sorry, you seem to be the only one missing it.

 

Nah, maybe you think you seeing it.

 

I quoted it and linked to the source. No one else is complaining that they don't see it.

 

Don't see it either.

 

What a shock....

 

Is this what they call a "flamebait" comment? Just curious (so I know what I'm not supposed to do). Thanks!

 

I think almost anyone would acknowledge that, in an emergency situation like 9/11, the Secretary of Defense should be "in the loop."

The difference is that normal people realize that (*)(*)(*)(*) happens and people who work for the government are incompetent (for me, 9/11 strengthened my libertarian views that there are few things the government should be in charge of), and that in this case the fact that he was not in the loop was yet another example of how we were utterly unprepared and unaware that something like 9/11 could happen.

9/11 Deniers see that he was not in the loop and immediately assume "ZOMG PROOF OF A GIANT MASSIVE EVIL CONSPIRACY!!!!1!!1!!1!"

 

Now you're claiming that you don't see that the protocol was changed? Isn't that the very premise of your thread?

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) HAPPENS???

How utterly simplistic of you.

There is no way on earth to convince the American people...most of 'em anyway...of what the rest of the world has known for 10 years now.

You people are amazingly thick and blinded by stars and stripes.
I can think of no other rational explanation for this sort of acquiescence to a story that amounts to horse-chips!

(*)(*)(*)(*) HAPPENS...LOL it certainly does...and some of you are proof of that...

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) happens... Meaning our government is as incompetent as the people in it. 9/11 was a massive screwup by those people. Failures across the board allowed the attacks to be a success.

And what is that, precisely?

The popularity of an idea has no bearing on its truth. The fact that you would even suggest otherwise is proof of your inability to apply logic to the situation.

As proven by, what, your glaring use of logical fallacy?

Do give us your theory of 9/11, will you?

 

Well I never argued this giant conspiracy on account of Rumsfeld's inaction.. I believe his lack of action was intentional, for selfish or sinister purposes, which may or may not be part of a broader conspiracy.

But I don't think you can call that "incompetence". Billions of people around the world were glued to their TV/radio by 9:10 a.m. wanting to know what was going on, and this includes stupid people as well. So why wasn't Rumsfeld interested? Incompetence might explain doing things wrong, but not a complete lack of interest. And not realizing such an attack has something to do with your job as secretary of defense is REALLY stupid.. Like IQ in the region of brain damage.

And also, shouldn't Rumsfeld have faced discipline for dereliction of duty?

 

I don't see anything superceding this


http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01.pdf


CJCSI 3610.0131 July 1997

B-2 Enclosure B

a. General. Military personnel will provide the following types of
support: intercept, surveillance, lift, equipment, and
communications. personnel may not participate in a search,
seizure, arrest, or other similar activity. This restriction would
include the apprehension of aircraft hijackers or use of military
aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter) or other vehicles as platforms for
gunfire or the use of other weapons against suspected hijackers.Civil, state, or Federal authorities may be moved to the vicinity, but
should be vested with sole responsibility for subduing suspects and
making arrests. In addition, assistance may not be provided under
this enclosure if it could adversely affect national security or military
preparedness. If there is a question on the appropriateness or legality
of providing requested support, such requests will be forwarded via
the DDO, NMCC to the DOD Executive Secretary and appropriate
OASD staff offices, and then to the Secretary of Defense for review and
approval.


http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf


CJCSI 3610.01A1 June 2001

3. Procedures

a. General. Military personnel will provide the following types of
support: intercept, surveillance, lift, equipment, and communications.
Military personnel may not participate in a search, seizure, arrest, orother similar activity. This restriction would include the
apprehensionof aircraft hijackers or use of military aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter) or other vehicles as platforms for gunfire or the use of other weaponsagainst suspected hijackers. In addition, assistance may not be provided under this enclosure if it could adversely affect national security or military preparedness.

 

Can't even keep his own stories straight...tsk tsk.

 

Based upon what evidence?

He was out of the loop. Billions of people were glued to their TV because they weren't doing something that prevented them from becoming glued to their TV. We're talking he was out of touch for half an hour.

The account given by numerous sources says that he received a note interrupting his official breakfast meeting at 8:46, but everyone in the meeting assumed it was an accident. The accounts next say he went into his morning CIA briefing right about the time the second plane hit. By the time the plane hit the Pentagon at 9:37, he was there and working actively on the situation, again according to all accounts.

What duty did he not follow? Where did he have a duty to be? What did he have a duty to do?

You're going to have to flesh out where he was, what he was doing, and what he was supposed to be doing during that time. Make sure to point out how it would have made any difference.

 

When the 2nd jet hit the WTCs, everyone and their brother KNEW the events were NOT accidents.

When the jet hit the Pentagon, the event became an attack on the United States of America.

Knowing that the building was vulnerable to attack he should have gone where SECDEFs go (???) when the US is attacked.

Instead he walks around to the part of the building that is demolished and helps the 1st responders?????

At this point, he is exhibiting unprecedented imcompetance and stupidity...or he has intentionally taken himself out of the loop.


If it was intentional, what does it do to the chain of command for a response to the event.

The changes in the documents linked above, allows him to walk around with his head up his ass and not worry about being nailed for deriliction of duty.

The question is why did he NOT want part of any action by US Military in the event of an attack on the US

 

Even if I accept the narrative as you describe it, why ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence?

Maybe he was exhibiting an unprecedented response to an unprecedented situation. You have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. He was responding on the spot to a situation which had never happened before in our history.

Where?

 

Monday morning quarterback is the easiest job on the team. Isn't it fitting that it is the only position the twoofers ever play?