| September 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
FISA Court Discouraged Moussaoui Warrant:
Led by the New York Times, a chorus of administration critics have been insisting all week that there was no reason for President Bush to circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court when he sought to wiretap terrorists operating inside the U.S. - since the FISA Court almost always approves such requests.
But that's not what the Times reported three years ago, after FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley came forward with the allegation that the Bureau might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if only investigators had been allowed access to the laptop computer of suspected 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui.
Moussaoui was arrested in Minneapolis on Aug. 16, 2001 - nearly four weeks before the 9/11 attacks - after an instructor at a local flight school he attended called the F.B.I. to report that he suspected the Moroccan-born terrorist was up to no good.
In a May 2002 report the Times noted: "Two days later, F.B.I. agents in Minnesota asked Washington to obtain a special warrant to search his laptop computer."
But FISA had disciplined the F.B.I. supervisor in charge of terrorist surveillance operations -- harming his career -- and making the FBI cautious about applying to FISA!
"Recent interviews of intelligence officials by The New York Times suggest that the Bureau had a reason for growing cautious about applying to a secret national security court for special search warrants that might have supplied critical information."
"The F.B.I.," officials told the Times, "had become wary after a well-regarded supervisor was disciplined because the [FISA] court complained that he had submitted improper information on applications."
The secret court went so far as to discipline Michael Resnick, the F.B.I. supervisor in charge of coordinating terrorist surveillance operations, saying they would no longer accept warrant applications from him.Intelligence officials told the Times that the FISA Court's decision to reprimand Resnick, who had been a rising star in the FBI, "resulted in making the Bureau far less aggressive in seeking information on terrorists."
..."Other officials," the paper said, complained that the FISA Court's actions against Resnick "prompted Bureau officials to adopt a play-it-safe approach that meant submitting fewer applications and declining to submit any that could be questioned."
...In a January 2002 letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller, [Sen. Charles] Grassley noted that had a search been permitted, "Agents would have found information in Moussaoui's belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the [9/11] hijacking plot working out of Germany, and to a Malaysian Al Qaeda boss who had met with at least two other [9/11] hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials."
This 2002 NY Times story shows that FISA is not only incapable of acting in such cases so as to save American lives -- its inability to do so led directly to the 9-11 attack itself.
And yet the NY Times -- and some Liberals -- want the U.S. to be forced to rely on FISA for permission to spy on terrorists communicating to or from the U.S. This would be very likely to lead to further killings of Americans by terrorists.
#1
#2The Rowley site is consistent with the 2002 NY Times story. The Rowley site states that no evidence on Moussaoui was brought to FISA. This is consistent with what the NY Times story said. As quoted in the above post:
"Other officials," the paper said, complained that the FISA Court's
actions against Resnick "prompted Bureau officials to adopt a
play-it-safe approach that meant submitting fewer applications and
declining to submit any that could be questioned."
Additionally, quoting from the Rowley site you linked:
It's true that the "FISA wall" problem did play a role in preventing the effective sharing and analysis of information pre 9-11. But to the extent that the "FISA wall" issue was problematic, (and in fact, there is no denying it was a problem, even if it all turned out to be more a problem of misperception and faulty interpretations), it was remedied when the Patriot Act brought down the "wall" shortly after 9-11 that prevented effective sharing of national security intelligence with criminal investigators and/or criminal attorneys.
I'm very glad to see that Rowley supports the Patriot Act so emphatically.
". . . FISA is not only incapable of acting in such cases so as to save American lives -- its inability to do so led directly to the 9-11 attack itself."
Not so. In fact, this claim is entirely based on myth, according to Coleen Rowley, the FBI agent who first brought the Moussaoui case to the nation's attention. She reminds us that the chief obstacle in the Moussaoui case was institutional incompetence at the FBI, not FISA, and she has explicitly criticized Bush for his surveillance of U.S. citizens on American soil.
Moreover, I find it a bit hypocritical that so many on the right will baldly insist that without FISA 9/11 would have been averted, yet refuse to acknowledge that Bush ignored many more significant warnings about the attacks, including Richard Clarke's repeated attempts to deal with al-Qaeda, and the infamous Aug 6 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.' If Bush ignored that, what makes you think he would have done jack about Moussaoui, FISA or no FISA?