Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT/Reuters: Changed FBI Would Not Miss Terror Warnings: Mueller

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 11:53 PM
Original message
NYT/Reuters: Changed FBI Would Not Miss Terror Warnings: Mueller
Changed FBI Would Not Miss Terror Warnings: Mueller
By REUTERS
Published: March 24, 2006

HOUSTON (Reuters) - The FBI has changed since the 9/11 attacks and would not miss warnings like those it had about September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, now on trial for his life, FBI Director Robert Mueller said on Friday....

***

He said the Patriot Act and court rulings had broken down barriers within the FBI and between it and other agencies so that information was regularly shared.

"The Patriot Act has broken down the walls,'' he said. "In large part, before September 11, 2001, we were hampered in our ability to undertake the kind of aggressive type of investigations that we are currently doing today.''...

***

When asked about recent disclosures that President George W. Bush authorized surveillance of international phone calls and e-mails without search warrants, Mueller declined to comment.

"It's something that's classified I'd rather not get into,'' he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-security-fbi.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
movonne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is bull shit propaganda...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Because it wasn't the law that stopped info from progressing.
It was bureaucratic infighting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. agreed
DID FBI CALL OFF PROBE OF SAUDIS TO PROTECT OIL TIES?

The book also reveals that a former top FBI counterterrorism official who was killed in the World Trade Center attack had complained bitterly about how U.S. oil politics had shut down FBI investigations. The former official, John O'Neill, resigned in protest as head of the FBI's national security division in August and was hired as chief of security at the twin towers. "All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization, can be found in Saudi Arabia," O'Neill is quoted as saying in the book. Agents trying to probe last year's bombing of the USS Cole constantly knocked heads with the U.S. State Department, which ended up barring O'Neill, the head of the investigation, from entering Yemen. Brisard says O'Neill told him about the problems last June and July. "He was profoundly frustrated with the situation."

The book's thesis was also advanced independently in a report on BBC-TV's investigative show Newsnight in early November. "(The U.S. Department of) State wanted to keep the pro-American Saudi royal family in control of the world's biggest oil spigot, even at the price of turning a blind eye to any terrorist connection,'' it reported.

The show asked whether September 11 could have been prevented if the FBI had been allowed to do its job. As it happened, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, mostly from wealthy families.

"(FBI investigators) were pursuing these matters, but were told to back off," said David Armstrong, an intelligence expert at the Washington, D.C.-based Public Education Center, a nonprofit investigative organization that helped the BBC research its report.

Boston University international relations professor Adim Najamat, who has studied Saudi politics, says the notion of an FBI retreat from investigations does seem plausible given the regime's precariousness. "Bin Laden seems to have a big following in Saudi Arabia. It is quite clear that the Saudi government is playing a game for its life. The irony is, bin Laden might get what he wants due to U.S. actions in Afghanistan," he says.


John O'Neill was an F.B.I. agent with an obsession: the growing threat of Al Qaeda.

During the next six years, O'Neill became the bureau's most committed tracker of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network of terrorists as they struck against American interests around the world. Brash, ambitious, often full of himself, O'Neill had a confrontational personality that brought him powerful enemies. Even so, he was too valuable to ignore. He was the point man in the investigation of the terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, East Africa, and Yemen. At a time when the Clinton Administration was struggling to decide how to respond to the terrorist threat, O'Neill, along with others in the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., realized that Al Qaeda was relentless and resourceful and that its ultimate target was America itself. In the last days of his life, after he had taken a new job as the chief of security for the World Trade Center, he was warning friends, "We're due."

<snip>

Clarke immediately spotted in O'Neill an obsessiveness about the dangers of terrorism which mirrored his own. "John had the same problems with the bureaucracy that I had," Clarke told me. "Prior to September 11th, a lot of people who were working full time on terrorism thought it was no more than a nuisance. They didn't understand that Al Qaeda was enormously powerful and insidious and that it was not going to stop until it really hurt us. John and some other senior officials knew that. The impatience really grew in us as we dealt with the dolts who didn't understand."

Osama bin Laden had been linked to terrorism since the first World Trade Center bombing, in 1993. His name had turned up on a list of donors to an Islamic charity that helped finance the bombing, and defendants in the case referred to a "Sheikh Osama" in a recorded conversation. "We started looking at who was involved in these events, and it seemed like an odd group of people getting together," Clarke recalled. "They clearly had money. We'd see C.I.A. reports that referred to 'financier Osama bin Laden,' and we'd ask ourselves, 'Who the hell is he?' The more we drilled down, the more we realized that he was not just a financier—he was the leader. John said, 'We've got to get this guy. He's building a network. Everything leads back to him.' Gradually, the C.I.A. came along with us."

<snip>

Meanwhile, intelligence had been streaming in concerning a likely Al Qaeda attack. "It all came together in the third week in June," Clarke said. "The C.I.A.'s view was that a major terrorist attack was coming in the next several weeks." On July 5th, Clarke summoned all the domestic security agencies—the Federal Aviation Administration, the Coast Guard, Customs, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the F.B.I.—and told them to increase their security in light of an impending attack.

<snip>

On September 10th, O'Neill called Robert Tucker, a friend and security-company executive, and arranged to get together that evening to talk about security issues at the Trade Center. Tucker met O'Neill in the lobby of the north tower, and the two men rode the elevator up to O'Neill's new office, on the thirty-fourth floor. "He was incredibly proud of what he was doing," Tucker told me. Then they went to a bar at the top of the tower for a drink. Afterward, they headed uptown to Elaine's, where they were joined by their friend Jerry Hauer. Around midnight, the three men dropped in on the China Club, a night spot in midtown. "John made the statement that he thought something big was going to happen," Hauer recalled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 02:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. i agree total bullshit propaganda!! ..n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. ohh and by the way..what happened during and before Katrina with
that oh so great communication?? and that oh so wonderful "homeland security??

yeah i would trust these sob's...not!!

fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 03:55 AM
Response to Original message
6. FBI didn't miss terror warnings..
they were ignored by the higher-ups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sattahipdeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-25-06 05:52 AM
Response to Original message
7. "It's something that's classified I'd rather not get into,'' (FUCK HIM)
Sibel Edmonds said....
If Congress does not take action, Edmonds said, the coalition will
run newspaper ads publicizing the names of individual managers who
are alleged to have committed wrongdoing, along with their positions
and salaries.

"Sibel Edmonds: But even the AIPAC spy scandal, as far as I'm reading today, is just
touching the surface of it. It's going only to a certain degree. It doesn't go high enough, in
what it involves and how far it goes, and that's as far, and the best as far as I can explain."

....
Sibel Edmonds 60 Minutes

"Information was omitted and covered up
regarding documented and confirmed case of a
long-term FBI Informant and Asset who provided
the FBI with specific information and warnings in
April and June regarding the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/10/60minutes/main562685.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC