or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › FBI/CIA knew of plot before 9/11
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FBI/CIA knew of plot before 9/11 - Page 6

post #201 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>
if musical interest is the basis of what age you think people are then I guess I'm 49 as well
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Jimmac is off by about a dozen years in his estimate of my age as well.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #202 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:

<strong>So I guess this means you're going to continue to post here about the subject at hand? Well, I guess I will also. But, if I disagree with something you or anyone else says or have something to add you'll hear about it.

Expecting me to stop adressing only you is rediculous. If that's what you mean. You weren't very clear on that point.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You already know that I disagree with you. I already know that you disagree with me. If you need to find new ways to say that over and over again, I wouldn't stop you even if I could. But I'm not going to argue with you about this thread's subject.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #203 of 236
Age is not an issue here unless you question that I'm old enough to remember certain events. Besides it seem to me ( just following your lead ) that we haven't been talking about the subject at hand for some time now.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #204 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:

<strong>Age is not an issue here unless you question that I'm old enough to remember certain events...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I just wanted to know. It was just a question. Most people here don't have actual memories of those events.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #205 of 236
So that mp3 is that Alice Cooper? I use to like his earlier stuff.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #206 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:

<strong>So that mp3 is that Alice Cooper? I use to like his earlier stuff.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Social Distortion. They were a L.A. punk band from the '80s. Actually, I guess they got their start in the late '70s but I didn't discover them until the '80s. Mike Ness was more or less their leader. Oddly enough one of his big influences was Johnny Cash.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #207 of 236
About remembering those events it's odd from my perspective that there are more and more who don't. Just part of getting old I guess.

Thanks for the info on the band.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #208 of 236
you know, I personally like the idea that you two can exchange e-mails . . . without clogging these threads...
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #209 of 236
What's to clog? This thread died a long time ago.

[ 05-26-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #210 of 236
So you're just twisting the knife?
post #211 of 236
The knife twists itself now.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #212 of 236
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&578&e=20&u=/nm/20020525/ts_nm/attack_fbi_dc_5" target="_blank">A Minneapolis FBI agent</a> is accusing the national office of preventing them from investigating Moussaoui like they wanted. They picked this guy up because of suspicions regarding a flight school. The Minneapolis agents wanted to investigate him, but the national FBI office prevented them from doing so, she claims.

This seems like a more direct screw-up than any of the others. If they had investigated this guy more thoroughly at the time, and he really was going to be part of 9/11 like they think, they could have blown this thing wide open and prevented it.

She's also claiming that they tried to cover it up after the fact.
post #213 of 236
Yes, it's looking more and more like a major screw up on someone's part.

[ 05-26-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #214 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong><a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&578&e=20&u=/nm/20020525/ts_nm/attack_fbi_dc_5" target="_blank">A Minneapolis FBI agent</a> is accusing the national office of preventing them from investigating Moussaoui like they wanted. They picked this guy up because of suspicions regarding a flight school. The Minneapolis agents wanted to investigate him, but the national FBI office prevented them from doing so, she claims.

This seems like a more direct screw-up than any of the others. If they had investigated this guy more thoroughly at the time, and he really was going to be part of 9/11 like they think, they could have blown this thing wide open and prevented it.

She's also claiming that they tried to cover it up after the fact.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Even worse .... A very disturbing quote if it happens to be true:

But requests for a warrant were thwarted by FBI supervisors in Washington, who seemed so intent on ignoring the threat Moussaoui posed that some field agents speculated that key officials at FBI headquarters <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/05/28/1022243318700.html" target="_blank">"had to be spies or moles ... working for Osama bin Laden".</a>

I just hope this is not true, for the implications that it might bring and how scary those implications are.
post #215 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by jakkorz:
<strong>

Even worse .... A very disturbing quote if it happens to be true:

But requests for a warrant were thwarted by FBI supervisors in Washington, who seemed so intent on ignoring the threat Moussaoui posed that some field agents speculated that key officials at FBI headquarters <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/05/28/1022243318700.html" target="_blank">"had to be spies or moles ... working for Osama bin Laden".</a>

I just hope this is not true, for the implications that it might bring and how scary those implications are.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I hope it's not true that you would actually call that linked story "a news item" or use it to gather information regarding events. So field agents "felt" that higher-ups might have been moles for Bin Laden? So what?
Never had ONE lesson.
Reply
Never had ONE lesson.
Reply
post #216 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by finboy:
<strong>

I hope it's not true that you would actually call that linked story "a news item" or use it to gather information regarding events. So field agents "felt" that higher-ups might have been moles for Bin Laden? So what?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not a news item, nor an information gathering with regard to the event.

The quote was put as a reference. My comments are the subject of my post.
post #217 of 236
<strong>Originally posted by BRussell:
<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&578&e=20&u=/nm/20020525/ts_nm/attack_fbi_dc_5" target="_blank">A Minneapolis FBI agent</a> is accusing the national office of preventing them from investigating Moussaoui like they wanted. ...

This seems like a more direct screw-up than any of the others. If they had investigated this guy more thoroughly at the time, and he really was going to be part of 9/11 like they think, they could have blown this thing wide open and prevented it.</strong>

He probably wasn't part of the Sept 11 hijackings, but he was a link to Mohammad Atta's terrorist cell. All they need to do is break one link in the chain of events to have stopped the hijackings, like deporting Atta and his cell for terrorist connections.

I'm back from my vacation, and it finally looks like the CIA will get a turn through the grinder as well:

<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/760647.asp" target="_blank">The Hijackers We Let Escape</a>
The CIA tracked two suspected terrorists to a Qaeda summit in Malaysia in January 2000, then looked on as they re-entered America and began preparations for September 11. Inside what may be the worst intelligence failure of all. A NEWSWEEK exclusive
By Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman

... What happened next, some U.S. counterterrorism officials say, may be the most puzzling, and devastating, intelligence failure in the critical months before September 11. A few days after the Kuala Lumpur meeting, NEWSWEEK has learned, the CIA tracked one of the terrorists, Nawaf Alhazmi, as he flew from the meeting to Los Angeles. Agents discovered that another of the men, Khalid Almihdhar, had already obtained a multiple-entry visa that allowed him to enter and leave the United States as he pleased. ...

Yet astonishingly, the CIA did nothing with this information. Agency officials didnt tell the INS, which could have turned them away at the border, nor did they notify the FBI, which could have covertly tracked them to find out their mission. Instead, during the year and nine months after the CIA identified them as terrorists, Alhazmi and Almihdhar lived openly in the United States, using their real names, obtaining drivers licenses, opening bank accounts and enrolling in flight schoolsuntil the morning of September 11, when they walked aboard American Airlines Flight 77 and crashed it into the Pentagon. ...

The links would not have been difficult to make: Alhazmi met up with Hanjour, the Flight 77 pilot, in Phoenix in late 2000; six months later, in May 2001, the two men showed up in New Jersey and opened shared bank accounts with two other plotters, Ahmed Alghamdi and Majed Moqed. The next month, Alhazmi helped two other hijackers, Salem Alhazmi (his brother) and Abdulaziz Alomari, open their own bank accounts. Two months after that, in August 2001, the trail would have led to the plots ringleader, Mohamed Atta, who had bought plane tickets for Moqed and Alomari. Whats more, at least several of the hijackers had traveled to Las Vegas for a meeting in summer 2001, just weeks before the attacks. Its like three degrees of separation, insists an FBI official.
post #218 of 236
<strong>Originally posted by jimmac:
Yes, it's looking more and more like a major screw up on someone's part.</strong>

Major screwup on somebody's part? This is mostly institutional constipation. Probably every single government agency or office has it due to the morass of politics, money and ego involved. It gets so aggravating that everyone forgets what the charter of their organization is.
post #219 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by THT:
<strong>He probably wasn't part of the Sept 11 hijackings, but he was a link to Mohammad Atta's terrorist cell.</strong><hr></blockquote>According to the gov't, he was the 20th hijacker, and he's being prosecuted as such. Are you going to be a witness for the defense?
post #220 of 236
I'm sick of the whole FBI vs CIA crap and related bullshit. Just after 9-11 Bush gave all them a pat on the back and said "None of us saw it coming". Well now we know that's not true at all. The FBI did and ignored it and the CIA let it slip out of their fingers. Bush now needs to say "You ****ers ****ed up big time. You 100 people in the FBI that read these memos and did nothing, your fired. You chumps in the CIA that fell asleep at the switch, get lost. Oh and all you people in both branches that spent any time blaming the other, see ya." Then he needs to promote these people who did see it coming. Hire the Police Chief from NYC. Then get them all to work hard to find these terrorist ****ers and kill them.
post #221 of 236
THT,

For what it's worth, that was a much better way to put it. I just got tired of being jumped on for critisizing the government. So I went easy on them. I did say before ( and I didn't point fingers directly ) that " don't you think it's odd that they got that far. " That's what I ment , who ever is at fault it's strange that the terrorists were able to pull this off. Leading one to believe that there was a failure of the system somewhere.

[ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #222 of 236
<strong>Originally posted by BRussell:
According to the gov't, he was the 20th hijacker, and he's being prosecuted as such. Are you going to be a witness for the defense?
</strong>

That he is part of team on UA 93, I don't think so. I think the connections are fairly tenuous until they find out whether he was in a cell and if so, whether that cell was in on the Sept 11 hijackings. We won't know until some documentation is found, like a planning book with his name and the names of the hijackers in it. Right now, they don't have anything except his connection with Atta.

Finding him, them finding Atta was key. Of course, the CIA could have tracked down 5 of the hijackers too...
post #223 of 236
May 31, 2002, 4:08PM

<a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/1434351" target="_blank">On closer look, Rowley memo ignores Constitution</a>
By JONATHAN TURLEY


[quote]The media and the public love a reformer. This may explain the reaction this week to a 13-page letter from FBI agent Coleen Rowley criticizing the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui.

Rowley has been portrayed by national publications such as Time magazine in almost breathless terms as a cross between Martin Luther and Annie Oakley.

What is astonishing is how little of her memo actually has been read or quoted beyond its most sensational suggestions, such as the notion that Rowley and her colleagues might have been able to prevent one or more of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Rowley's criticism of the FBI largely turns on disagreement over the meaning of probable cause. Rowley insists that there was probable cause to secure a search warrant for Moussaoui's computer and personal effects. FBI headquarters disagreed, and it was right.

On Aug. 15, 2001, Moussaoui was arrested by the Immigration and Nationalization Service on a charge of overstaying his visa. At that time, the Minnesota office only had an "overstay" prisoner and a suspicion from an agent that he might be a terrorist because of his religious beliefs and flight training. If this hunch amounted to probable cause, it is hard to imagine what would not satisfy such a standard...<hr></blockquote>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #224 of 236
<strong>Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/1434351" target="_blank">On closer look, Rowley memo ignores Constitution</a>
By JONATHAN TURLEY
</strong>

I find Rowley's memo more persuasive than Turley's article, and Turley looks to be defending the 4th amendment on principle. Admirable, but seems beside the point because Rowley was arguing that the MPLS FBI had probable cause because of the French information (which Turley dismisses), and FBI HQ machinations did not follow through.

Turley says: Rowley rejects the notion that the attacks in any way "improved or changed" the basis for probable cause. In her view, if probable cause existed on Sept. 11, it must have existed before Sept. 11. This is simply wrong as a matter of law. The attacks were obviously material to establishing probable cause against Moussaoui.

Rowley also places importance on a French report that "confirmed (Moussaoui's) radical fundamentalist Islamic" affiliations. This report was extremely vague and discounted by the FBI and other intelligence and foreign agencies.


Rowley says: 2) As the Minneapolis agents' reasonable suspicions quickly ripened into probable cause, which, at the latest, occurred within days of Moussaoui's arrest when the French Intelligence Service confirmed his affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups and activities connected to Osama Bin Laden, they became desperate to search the computer lap top that had been taken from Moussaoui as well as conduct a more thorough search of his personal effects. The agents in particular believed that Moussaoui signaled he had something to hide in the way he refused to allow them to search his computer.

3) ... While reasonable minds may differ as to whether probable cause existed prior to receipt of the French intelligence information, it was certainly established after that point and became even greater with successive, more detailed information from the French and other intelligence sources. ...

6 ) Eventually on August 28, 2001, after a series of e-mails between Minneapolis and FBIHQ, which suggest that the FBIHQ SSA deliberately further undercut the FISA effort by not adding the further intelligence information which he had promised to add that supported Moussaoui's foreign power connection and making several changes in the wording of the information that had been provided by the Minneapolis Agent, the Minneapolis agents were notified that the NSLU Unit Chief did not think there was sufficient evidence of Moussaoui's connection to a foreign power. ... With the Whitehurst allegations, this process of allowing supervisors to re-write portions of laboratory reports, was found to provide opportunities for over-zealous supervisors to skew the results in favor of the prosecution. In the Moussaoui case, it was the opposite -- the process allowed the Headquarters Supervisor to downplay the significance of the information thus far collected in order to get out of the work of having to see the FISA application through or possibly to avoid taking what he may have perceived as an unnecessary career risk. I understand that the failures of the FBIHQ personnel involved in the Moussaoui matter are also being officially excused because they were too busy with other investigations, the Cole bombing and other important terrorism matters, but the Supervisor's taking of the time to read each word of the information submitted by Minneapolis and then substitute his own choice of wording belies to some extent the notion that he was too busy. As an FBI division legal advisor for 12 years (and an FBI agent for over 21 years), I can state that an affidavit is better and will tend to be more accurate when the affiant has first hand information of all the information he/she must attest to. ...


Turley, as he should, argues for the FBI to strictly follow their Constitutional mandate, but in doing so, he dismisses the intel on Moussaoui by agreeing with FBI HQ that the French intelligence information ("activities connected to Osama Bin Laden") was suspect. If this information was correct, then I would presume Turley would think the MPLS FBI had probable cause. "Probable cause" to me hinged entirely on Moussaoui's connection to Osama bin Laden, a person who issued a fatwa for all Muslims to kill any and all Americans and built an organization to do so.

So the argument really lies in the efficacy of the Mousaoui intelligence report. Rowley believed it true. She believed she had probable cause, and that FBI HQ lessoned the danger he could cause by changing the MPLS affidavit and dismissing the French info. Turley thinks it was suspect. (One wonders how Turley would even know the contents of the report.) If it was, yes the MPLS FBI didn't have probable cause, but that seems obvious to me.

So, why is it that FBI HQ and CIA didn't believe the French intelligence on a French national?
post #225 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by THT:
<strong>
I find Rowley's memo more persuasive than Turley's article, and Turley looks to be defending the 4th amendment on principle. Admirable, but seems beside the point because Rowley was arguing that the MPLS FBI had probable cause because of the French information (which Turley dismisses), and FBI HQ machinations did not follow through...

Turley, as he should, argues for the FBI to strictly follow their Constitutional mandate, but in doing so, he dismisses the intel on Moussaoui by agreeing with FBI HQ that the French intelligence information ("activities connected to Osama Bin Laden") was suspect. If this information was correct, then I would presume Turley would think the MPLS FBI had probable cause. "Probable cause" to me hinged entirely on Moussaoui's connection to Osama bin Laden, a person who issued a fatwa for all Muslims to kill any and all Americans and built an organization to do so.

So the argument really lies in the efficacy of the Mousaoui intelligence report. Rowley believed it true. She believed she had probable cause, and that FBI HQ lessoned the danger he could cause by changing the MPLS affidavit and dismissing the French info. Turley thinks it was suspect. (One wonders how Turley would even know the contents of the report.) If it was, yes the MPLS FBI didn't have probable cause, but that seems obvious to me.

So, why is it that FBI HQ and CIA didn't believe the French intelligence on a French national?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I wasn't fully persuaded by what seemed to me to be Turley's too quick dismissal of the French intel report. But we also need to do a reality check here. According to Rowley, that report descibed Moussaoui as having "affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups and activities connected to Osama Bin Laden." That's a fair description of the prisoners at Gitmo. I seem to recall a great deal of squeamishness regarding the legality of of our treatment of the Gitmo detainees and that was after 9/11. The FBI's handling of Moussaoui before 9/11 was fully consistent with the sensitivities on display during that controversy. This is a point of view that places the dotting and crossing of Constitutional i's and t's ahead of a potential national security threat and it has had a strong currency outside of the FBI. These competing interests aren't easily resolved. It seems to me that this debate should be close to the center of the discussion of this matter.

[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #226 of 236
<strong>Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
The FBI's handling of Moussaoui before 9/11 was fully consistent with the sensitivities on display during that controversy. This is a point of view that places the dotting and crossing of Constitutional i's and t's ahead of a potential national security threat and it has had a strong currency outside of the FBI. These competing interests aren't easily resolved. It seems to me that this debate should be close to the center of the discussion of this matter.
</strong>

Yes I agree. It always should be. I don't think the law enforcement agencies need more powers whatsoever, and they didn't need it to stop the Sept. 11 hijackings. As said before, I'm not out to nor do I believe that Americans need to give up their freedoms to be safer from terrorism. Americans do however should expect and require the gov't that is working for and paid by them to work better than as demonstrated.
post #227 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by THT:
<strong>
Yes I agree. It always should be. I don't think the law enforcement agencies need more powers whatsoever, and they didn't need it to stop the Sept. 11 hijackings. As said before, I'm not out to nor do I believe that Americans need to give up their freedoms to be safer from terrorism. Americans do however should expect and require the gov't that is working for and paid by them to work better than as demonstrated.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The Moussaoui investigation faltered on the issue of probable cause. Going back in time, trying to approach this without all the information we've learned since, it is not at all clear to me that probable cause existed here. This investigation was governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. (<a href="http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html" target="_blank">Here's</a> a FISA FAQ.)

from the FAQ:
[quote]3. How does FISA fit with regulation of electronic surveillance?

Given the "tendency of those who execute the criminal laws... to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures," the Supreme Court has viewed commumications interception as an especially grave intrusion on rights of privacy and speech. Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 50 (1967) (quotation and citation omitted). "By its very nature eavesdropping involves an intrusion on privacy that is broad in scope," and its "indiscriminate use... in law enforcement raises grave constitutional questions." Id. at 56 (quotation and citation omitted). "Few threats to liberty exist which are greater than those posed by the use of eavesdropping devices." Id. at 63.

Thus, the Court outlined seven constitutional requirements: (1) a showing of probable cause that a particular offense has been or is about to be committed; (2) the applicant must describe with particularity the conversations to be intercepted; (3) the surveillance must be for a specific, limited period of time in order to minimize the invasion of privacy (the N.Y. law authorized two months of surveillance at a time); (4) there must be continuing probable cause showings for the surveillance to continue beyond the original termination date; (5) the surveillance must end once the conversation sought is seized; (6) notice must be given unless there is an adequate showing of exigency; and (7) a return on the warrant is required so that the court may oversee and limit the use of the intercepted conversations.

Indeed, the Court said that if "neither a warrant nor a statute authorizing eavesdropping can be drawn so as to meet the Fourth Amendment's requirements... then the fruits' of eavesdropping devices are barred under the Amendment." Id., at 63.

Where intelligence operations are concerned, however, the bounds of the Fourth Amendment are less clear than they are for ordinary criminal investigations. FISA creates a special court and legal regime for counterintelligence surveillance orders...<hr></blockquote>

The next question in the FAQ deals with the special legal regime for "foreign intelligence" surveillance. (And under which, it would appear, the FBI could have proceeded to search Moussaoui's computer.) This was what seemed to pique Mr. Turley's interest the most.

[ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #228 of 236
<strong>Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
The Moussaoui investigation faltered on the issue of probable cause. Going back in time, trying to approach this without all the information we've learned since, it is not at all clear to me that probable cause existed here. This investigation was governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. (Here's a FISA FAQ.)</strong>

"Probable cause" is entirely dependent on whether it could be proven that Moussaoui was funded by al Queda and or went through the al Queda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If the French intel said so, I can't see how that wouldn't be probable cause.

Dismissing it as vague and unreliable when it appears to be true seems to be a breakdown in investigative ability somewhere in the intelligence chain.

Here is an interesting article on the INS:

<a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.confessore.html" target="_blank">Borderline Insanity</a>
President Bush wants the INS to stop granting visas to terrorists. The biggest obstacle? His own administration.

By Nicholas Confessore


Exactly six months after Mohammed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi had flown planes into the World Trade Center, letters from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) arrived at a Florida flight school informing these two late---very late---students that their visas had been approved. The incident seemed to capture perfectly the unfathomable ineptitude of an agency long unable to control illegal immigration but now supposed to be the front line of the domestic war on terrorism.

Among those most furious was President George W. Bush. "I was stunned and not happy," the president told reporters at a press conference. "I could barely get my coffee down." Within days, Bush's anger cascaded down through the federal bureaucracy. Attorney General John Ashcroft blasted "professional incompetence" for the "disturbing failure." INS commissioner James Ziglar called it an "inexcusable blunder" and promptly reassigned four top INS officials to "begin the process of accountability." And the Department of Justice Inspector General promised to report exactly what had happened. But why wait? Insiders already know what happened, and the president ought to hear the truth right away, though probably not while he's sipping hot coffee.

The good news for Bush---who loves nothing more than to blame Bill Clinton for everything---is that at least half the responsibility for the screw-up lies with the previous administration. In the mid 1990s, the Clinton administration initiated, then let die, a revolutionary computer visa system that could have prevented Atta and Al-Shehhi from getting their student visas, and might even have uncovered their conspiracy before September 11 came to pass. The bad news for Bush (and the rest of us) is that some of the people most responsible for killing the computer system are now running the INS---put there by none other than George W. Bush. And since September 11, these officials have been operating below the media radar to make sure that a broken immigration-security system stays broken.

Why would members of the Bush administration want to do such a thing, given the president's firm commitment to fight terrorism? Because of the president's other firm commitment to courting Hispanic voters. Key Bush officials know that an effective system of tracking immigrants is the last thing Hispanic and other immigration lobbyists want to see. Indeed, a fundamental tension operates within the Bush administration itself, and the GOP generally, between national-security conservatives, who want a strong INS capable of keeping terrorists out, and libertarian conservatives, who want a weak INS incapable of stopping the free flow of labor. It's no exaggeration to say that the future security of the country may depend upon which side wins. ...


Very interesting confluence of politics, lobbying, privacy, and motives fighting against security needs.

[ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
post #229 of 236
[quote]Originally posted by THT:
<strong>
"Probable cause" is entirely dependent on whether it could be proven that Moussaoui was funded by al Queda and or went through the al Queda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If the French intel said so, I can't see how that wouldn't be probable cause.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Where are you getting this? I dont know what was in that Frech intelligence report. Im just going by Rowleys description of it in her memo to Mueller. I didnt see her mention anything about Moussaoui recieving al Queda funding. Im not saying its not in that report. Theres just a lot of information to track down and I cant find this. It just seems to me that Rowley would mention it since it would have strengthened her argument regarding the debate over probable cause.

Also, as you said, it boils down to whether it could be proven that Moussaoui was funded by al Queda... Did the French intel report do that?

I'm leaning toward the opinion that there should be a lower standard than "probable cause" in cases like this anyway. Moussaoui wasn't an American citizen or a resident alien.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #230 of 236
<strong>Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
Where are you getting this? I dont know what was in that Frech intelligence report. Im just going by Rowleys description of it in her memo to Mueller. I didnt see her mention anything about Moussaoui recieving al Queda funding. Im not saying its not in that report. Theres just a lot of information to track down and I cant find this. It just seems to me that Rowley would mention it since it would have strengthened her argument regarding the debate over probable cause.</strong>

We, the public at large, don't know what's in the French intel report on Moussaoui. And it's highly likely that Rowley and anyone will not talk about what's in the report since it's classified. I do believe the French report says that Moussaoui went to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and had specific details of which fundamentilist Islamic organizations he had connections with. The money part is also my guess becuase paying for flight training in cash (though I may have this confused with someone else) is rather odd.

<strong>Also, as you said, it boils down to whether it could be proven that Moussaoui was funded by al Queda... Did the French intel report do that?</strong>

I'm not sure this would be the case (even though I said it), legally proven that is. Probable cause is a probability. It seems Turley wants 90% probability while Rowley thinks 51% is good enough for probable cause. The USA was supposed be in heightened alert from terrorist attacks at the time from "militant Islamic terrorists". Under this sort of atmosphere, Moussaoui seems to fit the "probable cause" condition pretty well, but apparently all the lines of communication weren't connected at the time.

What I meant by "proven" is what the French intel actually said. Did it really say that Moussaoui had connections to al Queda? If it did, then yes again, I think it's pretty open and shut.

<strong>I'm leaning toward the opinion that there should be a lower standard than "probable cause" in cases like this anyway. Moussaoui wasn't an American citizen or a resident alien.</strong>

I'm not there yet. I don't see it as that hard for the FBI and CIA to have done a better job of tracing someone's history.

[ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
post #231 of 236
from Mickey Kaus' Friday <a href="http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=2066517" target="_blank">Kausfiles</a>:

It's the Law, Stupid! An excellent 6/8 National Journal column by <a href="http://nationaljournal.com/taylor.htm" target="_blank">Stuart Taylor</a> fleshes out the argument that while the FBI may have been incompetent, it really was hamstrung by a) the stringent requirements for obtaining a search warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and b) excessive fear of racial profiling, embedded in law and in the culture. .. Taylor points out that it's a lot easier to change the law and our thinking about profiling than it is to suddenly make the FBI and CIA bureaucracies vastly more efficient. ... P.S.: Taylor thinks Coleen Rowley was wrong -- the FBI hadn't met the standard of "probable cause" under the law. That's because the standard was way too high. As Taylor notes:

"Evidence of terrorist intent alone is not enough; "membership" in some particular international terrorist "group" must be shown."

So if it's just one guy who wants to blow up the Superbowl, we leave him alone! ... The problem is less dumb bureaucrats than dumb law...
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #232 of 236
And they said this thread was dead. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #233 of 236
<strong>Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
Taylor points out that it's a lot easier to change the law and our thinking about profiling than it is to suddenly make the FBI and CIA bureaucracies vastly more efficient. ...</strong>

It is easier yes, but doing the hard thing - ie, reforming the 3 letter gov't agencies - benifits us all moreso, while changing the law has the potential to do just as much harm as good. We should do the hard thing because its the right thing to do.

As for profiling, I have no idea what it means, and I would contend that people don't have the same idea of what it is either.

<strong>Taylor thinks Coleen Rowley was wrong -- the FBI hadn't met the standard of "probable cause" under the law. That's because the standard was way too high. As Taylor notes:

"Evidence of terrorist intent alone is not enough; "membership" in some particular international terrorist "group" must be shown."</strong>

This is all assuming that there isn't more information than is publicly known in the French intel. I would presume going through al Queda training camps means membership. If not, then it's a tougher decision.

Also the "membership" qualification isn't the standard, it's:

Section.1801

(a) ''Foreign power'' means -

4. a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;

(b) ''Agent of a foreign power'' means -

(1) any person other than a United States person, who -

(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;

(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person's presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or ...


The difference between membership and "acting for or on behalf of," I'm not entirely sure, but a person "acting for or on behalf" seems a much looser statement than "membership".

<strong>So if it's just one guy who wants to blow up the Superbowl, we leave him alone! ... The problem is less dumb bureaucrats than dumb law...</strong>

A lone person wanting to commit a terrorist act will be very hard to stop.

[ 06-10-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
post #234 of 236
THT, who cares about this bullshit!? Get back to Future hardware and grace us with you wisdom
post #235 of 236
" if musical interest is the basis of what age you think people are then I guess I'm 49 as well ".

Oh, I thought I might mention that the point here that Applenut and SpacemanSpiff are missing is that I listened to this stuff 30 years ago when it was new. I've since moved on to other things. Not that I don't go back for nostaligia. But, if I'm reading this correctly I'm glad we have something in common besides owning a Mac.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #236 of 236
The New York Times

May 31, 2002

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/31/opinion/31KRIS.html" target="_blank">Liberal Reality Check</a>
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


[quote]As we gather around F.B.I. headquarters sharpening our machetes and watching the buzzards circle overhead, let's be frank: There's a whiff of hypocrisy in the air.

One reason aggressive agents were restrained as they tried to go after Zacarias Moussaoui is that liberals like myself - and the news media caldron in which I toil and trouble - have regularly excoriated law enforcement authorities for taking shortcuts and engaging in racial profiling. As long as we're pointing fingers, we should peer into the mirror.

The timidity of bureau headquarters is indefensible. But it reflected not just myopic careerism but also an environment (that we who care about civil liberties helped create) in which officials were afraid of being assailed as insensitive storm troopers.

So it's time for civil libertarians to examine themselves with the same rigor with which we are prone to examine others. The bottom line is that Mr. Moussaoui was thrown in jail - thank God - not because there was evidence he had committed a crime but because he was a young Arab man who behaved suspiciously and fit our stereotypes about terrorists. One of the most widespread canards since 9/11 is that he wanted to learn to fly a 747 but not how to take off or land. That is completely false; on the contrary, repeated F.B.I. statements show that he specifically asked for instruction on taking off and landing.

Mr. Moussaoui aroused suspicion for much milder behavior: he paid $8,000 in cash for the flight lessons; he expressed "unusual interest" in the notion that a plane's doors could not be opened during flight; he was a wretched pilot and yet wanted to learn how to fly a jumbo jet...<hr></blockquote>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › FBI/CIA knew of plot before 9/11