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

The Bush administration changed the protocol for intercepting suspect flights in June of 2001 (they have been in place since the 70's), and changed them back to their original (pre June 2001 standards) shortly after the big event. Can someone tell me why or speculate that would have happened? Thanks!

 

Do you have a source or is this another made-up claim?

 

C'mon now sport! I know you can at least find that much on your own! Well...maybe not..

Edit: Here ya go sport. http://newworldorderreport.com/News...n-Authority-Impacted-by-Secret-Directive.aspx



Now that doesn't have a USDA stamp, so, fair warning.

 

try again>

 

Sooooo...that didn't happen. That what you're implying?

 

No, use links that work

 

Works fine for me.
http://newworldorderreport.com/News/...Directive.aspx

 

It worked for me just fine.

 

So, Donald Rumsfeld wrote up a rule that he alone must handle requests for intercept during certain hijacking situations.

Whereas before such requests didn't require such approval..

And yet, when he was notified of the attack on his country using hijacked aircraft, he went AWOL, "out of the loop" as he put it and was UNreachable.

Why would he make it so he would be necessary during such a situation, and yet, three months later when such situation happened, he disappeared so he couldn't authorize such intercept.

This doesn't seem dodgy to any of you?

 

the link itself worked, but the links inside didn't for me

 

Another case of a 'truther' posting to links that they haven't properly researched. Let's take a look at what the directive actually says:

The link references CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997, which CJCSI 3610.01A superseded. Take a look at the old and the new instructions, and you'll find two interesting things.

Firstly, in the old (1997) instruction, you'll find the words, "The NMCC will monitor the situation and forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for aircraft piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval." So the requirement to approve requests at Secretary of Defense level had been in existence since 1997, rather than being introduced in June 2001, as 9/11 Review likes to imply.

Secondly, you'll note that the new instruction contains the exception for "immediate responses as authorized by reference d." I hope you noticed that, because it's in the excerpt you posted. Reference D is 'DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, “Military Assistance to Civil Authorities”', which states that "Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g))."

So, what does all this mean? It means that the June 2001 did the exact opposite of what 'truthers' claim it did. Rather than introducing a new regulation that said that all requests for military assistance had to be cleared with the Secretary for Defense, it actually introduced a new exception to an old regulation, saying that, if there was an immediate risk to life or property, any commander could act on his own initiative. It didn't prevent the military from responding quickly; it over-ruled a regulation that had obstructed a quick response.

Check the original documents.

 

Here are the documents themselves, unfiltered:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg534/nsarc/DOD302515pMACA.pdf

Read 'em.

 

If the SECDEF is obviously written into the procedures during certain hijacking situations, why would the SECDEF go AWOL and out of the loop, during exactly such a situation?

 

You may have to ask him, or wait for his book. I can't answer that with the info I have.

I was merely showing the thread premise to be false.

 

Donald Rumsfeld should have told the 9/11 commission.. The 9/11 commission should have demanded to know.

Instead we have an obvious whitewash, which is why, even with the 9/11 commission report handy on the side, we just don't have that info as you put it.

I doubt Rumsfeld will be any more specific about that shadow half hour in his book, because the way he's been on about it until now is as though the attack started at 9:37 a.m.

Now that you've done that, I was just wondering what you thought about this? Like what's your best speculation about what he was doing and why?

 

Gee, it's almost as if he didn't know the attacks were going to happen.

Oh, wait, that's exactly what it is.

 

It doesn't matter that Rumsfeld was out of the loop, he isn't authorized to give a shoot down order of a commercial aircraft

AND, the military doesn't have the authority either, they do have the power to shoot down "derelict objects (e.g., unmanned free balloons, moored balloons, kites,unmanned non-nuclear rockets or missiles, UAV or ROV) over United States or international airspace."

It seems to have fallen under Posse Comitatus.

This brings up the question as to whether or not Cheney had given a shoot down order.

???

 

You seem to be mistaken. Read the documents posted.

 

I wasn't talking about what he was doing before the attacks, I clearly referred to the time period AFTER he was made aware that the attacks were happening.

 

Let me ask you a question.. Based on your review and understanding of the documents, and what you know the SECDEF's role is and isn't, do you think that during the attack crisis of 9/11, once made aware of the attacks, the SECDEF should have been reachable, and in the loop? Please just answer honestly; I'm only after your opinion.

 

Of course he should have.

 

You admit it was changed,as was claimed in the OP, do you not?

It's funny. Anyone or anything that differs with the "official" story, it is always "incorrect".

As for your counter claim, it is a "misrepresentation" of the facts

Read folks...by all means...read, and consider the source(s) while doing so.

 

Once again, you posted a thread without really researching if what your source claims was true. Naturally, the evidence proves your source incorrect, as anyone who will read the original documents can see.

Why can't 'truthers' (or in this case 'truther' websites) tell the truth?

 

No, he doesn't admit it was changed "as was claimed in the OP". He quite clearly stated it was changed in a different way, that was actually the opposite of what the OP claimed.

Especially when, as here, they are factually incorrect.

Read the original documents.

LOL... The source he used was the original documents. What could be better than that?

 

The protocol was changed. That's what the OP said. Was it or wasn't it? Never mind....the pointless thing rears its ugly head.