Again calling for law enforcement to "go out to the Muslim communities," Dietl falsely claimed all 9-11 hijackers "were in this country illegally"
SUMMARY: On MSNBC's Tucker, former New York Police Department detective Bo Dietl falsely claimed that "all the hijackers that came and then bombed [the United States] on 9-11, all of them were in this country illegally." In fact, all 19 of the 9-11 hijackers reportedly entered the United States legally, though two had overstayed their visas.
Discussing the Department of Homeland Security report "Progress in Developing the National Asset Database" on the July 12 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, former New York Police Department detective Bo Dietl falsely claimed that "all the hijackers that came and then bombed [the United States] on 9-11, all of them were in this country illegally." Dietl cited the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as evidence that "[w]e have to be able to go out to the Muslim communities ... to identify people" and that "we have to tighten up our borders." In fact, as reported by the Christian Science Monitor on February 5, 2002, all 19 of the 9-11 hijackers entered the United States legally, though two had overstayed their visas.
As Media Matters for America has noted, Dietl previously claimed that the next terrorist attack would "come from a Muslim person" and that law enforcement should "[g]o into your 7-Elevens or go into one of these stores that keep rotating young men who are Muslims," and say "[i]dentify yourself."
From the July 12 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
DIETL: You know, they have had dozens of plots against the -- against New York City. We had plots against the subway system. These plots have been broken over the last couple of years since 9-11. And people have to realize, when you have these plots coming to fruition, these are ones we know about. We're not talking about the ones we don't know about today.
And if you think, for any reason, that they're not going to try to come back and hurt us again, New York City, then you've got to be smoking crack. And any of these politicians who don't want to give us money in New York -- you've got the New York City Police Department, headed up by Ray Kelly. You have an intelligence division that has intelligence sourcing now that they are going undercover, and they're getting information before these things occur.
TUCKER CARLSON (host): Are they going undercover in mosques? I mean, what -- the question that no one wants to address in public is what should we do about Muslims in the United States?
DIETL: Well, you know what? Everyone's worrying about our freedom and our rights. I love my freedom. I love my rights. But the fact of the matter is that where the people are going to hurt us are hiding are in Muslim communities. I have nothing against Muslim people, but you have Muslim fanatics that want to kill us. In the Muslim community, of all the hijackers that came and then bombed on 9-11, all of them were in this country illegally. The problem here is we have people that are in our country. We have to be able to go out to the Muslim communities. We have to be able to identify people. If they don't have the right identification, we should ship them out. Then we have to tighten up our borders. You know, we have security technology right now where law-enforcement people can go up to somebody, put their palm print, and know if that person is legally here or not. And if they're not legally here, we've got to ship them out before they start to develop -- we've to get the cancer out of this country.
CARLSON: Well, sure. But that's your solution. I want to read to you a little more of the federal government's solution.
We had a nutjob writing the exact same thing in the comments section this week. Totally devoid of sane thought, they are!
And what's with the reichwing now pushing for a 10' high ELECTRIC fence with concertina wire at the top? What's next, land mines and machine guns? Gee, sounds more and more like they are trying to push for a Korean DMZ type of border, doesn't it? =0
Ten years ago if a commentator had made just this mistake they would be shortly off the air, and maybe talk radio would consider using him. Since he's all about the satire, certainly not about policy expertise, we should refer to this as a variety show. I think the bow tie, add oversized red shoes, and a red nose, make-up and wala; The Circus!
This guy would get a "D" in a high school civics class and an "F" in journalism cource. The "D" is usually the grade a teacher will give for the effort.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Does anyone take this guy seriously? I hear his hate weekly on Imus. The guy is a pure racist and hatemonger.
I was listening to a radio call in show the other day and I heard a discussion that we are in World War III. I'm immediately thought to myself this guy was a Beck listener.
do they give this buffoon air time? I understand his presence on Imus since Imus' show specializes in that form of I'm just a bigot dumb guy entertainment; and Imus himself is only working with about 2 to 3 good brain cells that haven’t been ravaged by effects of cocaine. But it always amazes me to see this guy show up on the so called “news” shows. I mean this guy really is a nit-wit.
...because I don't watch or listent to the man. But every time I see/hear this Bo Dietl character, I'm convinced that the letter count in his name is higher than his I.Q.
The tools were already available to law enforcement to identify the 9/11 hijackers before 9/11. The government was already aware that some of them, like Atta, were threats. Remember the FBI agent who begged his superiors to take seriously his reports about men taking suspicious flight lessons? The pre-9/11 detection problems were institutional, not the result of lack of investigative authority.
9-11 hijakers..."The tools were already available to law enforcement to identify the 9/11 hijackers before 9/11". ...brings me to this question which I have had since this tragedy happened and no one has ever explained it......were not these monsters who were known to be here illegally at the time...of destruction from Iran....and if so....why did we go after Iraq? The concern of illegals is not about any particular ethnic group - its about being in this country with out legal documentation...and all of those illegals were known - at that time - to be here under false pretense.
They were here legally and I don't think any of them were from Iran.
~ R E M E M B E R 09/11/01 ~ Emma E Booker Elementary The guard dog, it did not bark.
EMMA BOOKER ELEMENTARY
09/11/01 This was a publicized event. In fact, it was a big deal in Florida. The press had been invited to Emma Booker Elementary to watch the President and the kids read. It was announced almost a week prior. In fact, the White House had a press engagement already scheduled to occur at 9:30am that Tuesday from the school. Scheduled the day prior to be broadcast live, across the Nation.
IF we are to believe the reports of that day, and really who doubts the events, the President was aware of the first plane strike BEFORE he went to the children. The second plane strike minutes later after sitting with the children. Andy Card's own report says he said to the President that, "America was under attack." Shortly after, the President prepared a statement for the public. Bush delivered, on time (9:30am) his address to the Nation, "America was under attack." His motorcade left Emma Booker Elementary at 9:34am, the Pentagon was struck minutes later.
THE DOG DID NOT BARK
The guard dog of the President is the Secret Service. Their roll is to guard and protect the President at all costs. To ensure that ALL locations are secure both prior to arrival and during. The SS ARE the first line of defense for the President during times of immediate and imminent crisis, like an attack on the Nation.
IF we are to believe the events of that day, then we are to believe that the S.S. had the interests of the Nation in hand and were acting to protect the President, at all costs. However, the S.S. did know prior to Bush finishing the reading session, that multiple planes may have been hijacked, and the President was informed shortly there after.
IF there was a suspicion of multiple planes being hijacked, one of which was not responding to Air Traffic Control:
HOW DID THE S.S. KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SAFE IN HIS PRESENT LOCATION?
WHY DID THE S.S. FEEL THAT LEAVING THE PRESIDENT IN A PUBLICIZED LOCATION WAS THE BEST SAFETY MANEUVER?
HOW WAS THE S.S. TO GUARANTEE THE SAFETY OF THE PRESIDENT KNOWING THAT MULTIPLE PLANES HAD BEEN HIJACKED BY DOING NOTHING?
THE GUARD DOG, IT DID NOT BARK
Many people point out that maybe they didn't want to frighten the children.
THEN WHY PROP THEM UP AS THE BACKDROP TO THIS GRAVE ANNOUNCEMENT, SCHEDULED LIVE, ON NATIONAL TEE VEE?
Impact, perhaps?
But why rush the Vice President to a bunker and not the President? Perhaps the S.S. were given instructions to act differently with the V.P. versus the President?
We do know that the CIA and other intelligence agencies did have knowledge OF the terrorists. The larger question that needs to be addressed (the real elephant in the room) is why wasn't anything ever, EVER done to stop them?
Remember, Emma E. Booker Elementary
"Because they were in this country for illegal purposes, they were here illegally." A real stretch to be sure, but not unheard in these times. Reminds me of a lot of the stuff I'm hearing/reading from all across the political spectrum.
Does that mean a US citizen bank robber is here illegally also? Unfortunately, many people in this country want to make criminals out of a state of being, rather than the performance of an illegal act. That is why the majority of the US House of Representative calls undocumented men, women and children felons. Their law makes their mere existence is a crime. If we do that, we need to change the inscription on the Statue of Liberty. Most of the people that come are in search of a means of surviving, and now we call that criminal. Let's add that to the Statue of Liberty.
If you look at the context of Dietl's conversation, he is talking about doing mass roundups of an ethnic group and "shipping out" all undocumented immigrants. Dietl doesn't deserve the benefit of a doubt by interpreting his comment that "all the 9-11 hijackers were here illegally" as somehow being correct.
"A stretch to be sure......." I don't agree with his words, but I think I see his intent. And yes, it applies to bank robbers, murders, etc. If your intent is illegal (in obtaining the right to come to this country), you should be considered illegal.
While it is easy enough to show intent AFTER a crime is committed it is impossible to prove what your intent is BEFORE a crime is comitted. Remember that conspiricy to commit a crime is itself a crime. Exactly what is your point, that we ought to look at immigrants, consult the I Ching then deny admissions based on the outcome?