FBI's pre-9/11 failures

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:16 am

http://www.comcast.net/news/national/in ... 52806.html

Interesting report. I don't think anyone's going to blame this on either Clinton or Bush, (at least, nobody with integrity will) but what do you think this means about our national security?

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:18 am

Organizations have vested interests.

That said every organization that has a purpose has a vested interest in its own survival. The FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF, PETA, Greenpeace, etc. The all have an interest in remaining a viable organization. Therefore internal rules are created to maintain its self interests.

With respect to intelligence organizations that meant not sharring info. If the FBI can crack a high profile case then they get more funding. If they give information to the DEA let's say and the DEA cracks the case that might hurt the FBI's funding.

superwalrus · Post by **superwalrus** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:20 am

Relbeek... you didn't blame the FBI / CIA for 9/11 before this? Honestly when it happened the first thing I thought was, "we pay all these cocksuckers all this money and this is how well they do their jobs?!"

Walrus

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:23 am

I blame Osama Bin Laden and the hijackers for 9/11. I blame the people who funded them *cough*saudiroyals*cough*. I don't blame the FBI as such.

superwalrus · Post by **superwalrus** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 1:16 pm

*shrug* obviously I blame the people that actually did it. However, I'm also blaming the fuckers whose JOB it was to PROTECT our country from this sort of shit from happening. Fucking slackers.

Walrus

Chants Evensong · Post by **Chants Evensong** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 1:48 pm

Whenever someone speaks of intelligence failures before 9/11 and the initials "CIA" and "FBI" surface, one must always remember the 1978 Foriegn Intelligence Act and the strengthening of that act by Jamie S. Gorelick, Asst. Attorney General under the Clinton Adiminstration.

Pursuant to the act, intelligence investigations were to be separated from criminal investigation. Thus, information gathered by intelligence (CIA) generally would not be shared with criminal investigators (FBI). That rule was heightened some 18 years later by Jamie S. Gorelick.

The policy underlying the 1978 Foriegn Intelligence Act was fairly simple to understand. If intelligence gatherers shared information with criminal investigators, then certain safeguards inherent in criminal prosecutions could be breached. The Act set forth the guidelines the relative agencies could follow in order to share information.

The Patriot Act has significantly softened the standards and guidelines the relative agencies have to follow in orer to share information.

So if anyone gets upset at some apparent intelligence failures, remember that were were a more naive country 6 years ago, placing perhaps a disporportionate emphasis on the liberties of criminals, even when we knew just how dangerous these criminals were. Obviously, the tension needed to be retuned. Hopefully, the Patriot Act has tuned the tension to our benefit and safety without placing undue restrictions on our liberties.

Post by **Ddrak** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:49 pm

placing perhaps a disporportionate emphasis on the liberties of criminals, even when we knew just how dangerous these criminals were.

That's not entirelyan accurate depiction of the issue. The civil liberties issue has never really been a problem of the liberties of criminals, but the liberties of people who haven't committed any crimes but may still be thought to be suspicious by the intelligence agencies.

Add that in with the fact that almost all 9/11 terrorists were in the country legally and not committing any crimes, you end up with the serious question of exactly what do you do in that situation. Supporters of the Patriot act enjoy slamming others with the "rights of criminals" line but the fact is the majority of the opposition has nothing to do with that, but the rights of those who are not criminals and the system of innocence until proven guilty, especially when viewed in light of the 4th amendment.

I don't think the US is a naive society for protecting the rights of law abiding people from constant oversight from law enforcement. I think they realize that freedom is too great a prize to remove it from the miniscule minority that use the very same freedom to commit acts of violence.

Dd

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:52 pm

I just want to say that Chants, being a lawyer, worries me when he uses language like "the rights of criminals" when the situation is "the rights of the citizens" - law abiding citizens and those suspected of crimes (guilty or not) apply. Not merely "criminals."

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:06 pm

Perhaps he's been indoctrinated with anti-Rose Bird propaganda in his youth. /shrug

Chants Evensong · Post by **Chants Evensong** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:18 pm

Yes, change "criminal" to "suspected criminal" in my post and it would be clearer. Thank you, Ddrak and Relbeek. I certainly was not looking to slam anyone or anything with my post. I was also not writing as a lawyer, but a layman. Writing as a layman, my reference to the term "criminal" applies not only to those already convicted of crimes, but also to those who have commited a crime, regardless of whether they have been successfully prosecuted.

That being said, I do have two points of clarification, since we are being more technical than I had thought we were.

One, the 9-11 terrorists may or may not have been in this country legally. But they certainly were commintting a heinous crime, that of conspiracy to commit murder. Prior to the 9-11 attacks, they planned, conspired, and worked in concert to kill 3000 innocent people.

Two, criminals do have rights, and those rights should be protected just as the rights of citizens are protected.

Chants Evensong · Post by **Chants Evensong** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:28 pm

Partha, I am against the detah penalty. Just so you know. So your Rose Bird comment is somewhat misplaced.

Post by **Ddrak** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:40 pm

Chants,

Points well taken, and I think laymen could do well distinguishing between convicted and suspected criminals.

On the note of the 9/11 terrorists, you're absolutely correct about the conspiracy charge and my bad for not recognizing that in my post.

Dd

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:13 pm

Chants - I appreciate your clarification, but surveillance has demonstrably happened on perfectly law abiding citizens whom were not even suspected of being criminals - merely subversive. So "citizens" is the best replacement for "criminals," not "suspected criminals." Remember the 1978 law was triggered in part by the excesses of the Nixon administration.

Chants Evensong · Post by **Chants Evensong** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:24 pm

Choose the semantic verbiage that appeals to you most regarding the terms citizen, criminal or suspected criminal. It does not change the fact that the government is in quite a pickle when they are expected to both protect our civil liberties and protect us from terrorists.

Post by **Ddrak** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:43 pm

the government is in quite a pickle when they are expected to both protect our civil liberties and protect us from terrorists.

I couldn't agree more. The only way to be absolutely safe from terrorism is to remove all freedom.

Dd

Chants Evensong · Post by **Chants Evensong** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:15 pm

Yes, exactly. The terrorists are not dumb. So when I say they, the terrorists, want to destroy our freedom, it's not just hollow demagoguery. They understand the dynamic tension we face.

Brell Rants

FBI's pre-9/11 failures

FBI's pre-9/11 failures

hmm

hmmm

Re: