Why asymmetrical warefare practitioners have nothing to fear
[An edited copy of Who Let the Terrorists Succeed? http://www.msnbc.com/news/758330.asp] The now-famous memo Minneapolis agent Coleen Rowley sent to Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, now widely known as the Federal Bureau of Incompetence. The May 21, 2002 memo, obtained by Time, is one scary document. It suggests [SURPRISE!] that we have a bunch of time-servers protecting our security, which no one is in charge of anything. If any of this changed after September 11, Rowley, a highly regarded veteran of the bureau, does not say so. Without mentioning names, Rowley basically fingers a mid-level FBI supervisory agent in the Hoover Building (in Washington) named Dave Frasca, who was supposed to be running the task force on religious fanatics. After the Minneapolis office took flight-student and hijacker-wannabe Zacarias Moussaoui into custody and obtained intelligence from the French indicating that he had terrorist ties, alert Minnesota agents didnt just passively push the case up the chain of command. They became, in Rowleys words, desperate to search his computer laptop. So desperate that they risked the wrath of higher ups by committing a real pre-9-11 no-no: contacting the CIA. Headquarters personnel didnt just deny the request to probe Moussaoui further. Even though they were privy to many more sources of intelligence information than field agents, as Rowley plaintively put it, they continued to, almost inexplicably, throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis by-now desperate attempts to obtain a search warrant. Because Frascas not commenting publicly, we havent heard the other side of the story. But as anyone who has ever worked in an office knows, HQ always has its own take on events, and sometimes its even right. In this case a federal judge in Washington, Royce C. Lambreth, grew annoyed at the poor documentation involved in requests from federal prosecutors for search warrants and wiretaps. One prosecutor so angered Lambreth that he was actually barred from seeking any more approvals from judges, a move that sent a chilling career message down through the ranks of the Justice Department. So Frasca, knowing which way the wind was blowing in Washington, wasnt just going to rubber stamp the Minneapolis request. [Does this mean the complaints by civil libertarians that FESA were being heard?] Moreover, the very fact that HQ is, in Rowleys words, privy to many more sources of intelligence is actually a hindrance, not necessarily a sign of negligence. The more intelligence chaff that comes in, the harder it is to find the wheat. Frasca should have the chance to explain that, and Judge Lambreth should explain why he thought the warrant process was being abused. But Rowleys certainly correct when she tells Mueller that the problem with chalking this all up to the 20/20 hindsight is perfect problem is that this is not a case of everyone in the FBI failing to appreciate the potential consequences. It is obvious that the agents in Minneapolis who were closest to the action and in the best position to gauge the situation locally did fully appreciate the terrorist risk/danger posed by Moussaoui. Doesnt that sound familiar in your company? The branch offices never think headquarters knows whats really going on, while the home office VPs think the branch guys are a bunch of whiners without the chops to make it in the big time at HQ. But in this evergreen of bureaucratic in-fighting, one of HQs best arguments is usually that unlike the branch offices, it sees the big picture. This time, as Rowley notes, Frasca and company not only failed to see the big picture, they worked actively to keep others from trying to see it. Thats quite an indictment. And thats only part of her bombshell. Rowley, who is, fortunately for her, close to retirement, also goes after Mueller himself. I have deep concerns that a delicate and subtle shading/skewering of facts by you and others at the highest levels of the FBI has occurred and is occurring. She argues that Muellers reorganization, which would further empower the FBIs Washington headquarters, is exactly the wrong approach to preventing terrorism. As if to confirm Rowleys harsh judgment, Mueller last week classified her memo, though we learned after it was leaked that there is nothing even vaguely compromising about FBI sources and methods contained in it. He classified it for the same reason Bush and Cheney dont want an independent commission to investigate what happened: Its embarrassing. Now its up to the rest of us to decide. [Unfortunately its not. If it were the problem would have been addresses decades ago.] Is embarrassment a proper standard for classifying documents and sweeping poor performance under the carpet? Or is it perhaps more patrioticand better for preventing a
Why asymmetrical warefare practitioners have nothing to fear from the FBI (and probably the rest of U.S. intelligence/law enforcement)
[An edited copy of Who Let the Terrorists Succeed? http://www.msnbc.com/news/758330.asp] The now-famous memo Minneapolis agent Coleen Rowley sent to Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, now widely known as the Federal Bureau of Incompetence. The May 21, 2002 memo, obtained by Time, is one scary document. It suggests [SURPRISE!] that we have a bunch of time-servers protecting our security, which no one is in charge of anything. If any of this changed after September 11, Rowley, a highly regarded veteran of the bureau, does not say so. Without mentioning names, Rowley basically fingers a mid-level FBI supervisory agent in the Hoover Building (in Washington) named Dave Frasca, who was supposed to be running the task force on religious fanatics. After the Minneapolis office took flight-student and hijacker-wannabe Zacarias Moussaoui into custody and obtained intelligence from the French indicating that he had terrorist ties, alert Minnesota agents didnt just passively push the case up the chain of command. They became, in Rowleys words, desperate to search his computer laptop. So desperate that they risked the wrath of higher ups by committing a real pre-9-11 no-no: contacting the CIA. Headquarters personnel didnt just deny the request to probe Moussaoui further. Even though they were privy to many more sources of intelligence information than field agents, as Rowley plaintively put it, they continued to, almost inexplicably, throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis by-now desperate attempts to obtain a search warrant. Because Frascas not commenting publicly, we havent heard the other side of the story. But as anyone who has ever worked in an office knows, HQ always has its own take on events, and sometimes its even right. In this case a federal judge in Washington, Royce C. Lambreth, grew annoyed at the poor documentation involved in requests from federal prosecutors for search warrants and wiretaps. One prosecutor so angered Lambreth that he was actually barred from seeking any more approvals from judges, a move that sent a chilling career message down through the ranks of the Justice Department. So Frasca, knowing which way the wind was blowing in Washington, wasnt just going to rubber stamp the Minneapolis request. [Does this mean the complaints by civil libertarians that FESA were being heard?] Moreover, the very fact that HQ is, in Rowleys words, privy to many more sources of intelligence is actually a hindrance, not necessarily a sign of negligence. The more intelligence chaff that comes in, the harder it is to find the wheat. Frasca should have the chance to explain that, and Judge Lambreth should explain why he thought the warrant process was being abused. But Rowleys certainly correct when she tells Mueller that the problem with chalking this all up to the 20/20 hindsight is perfect problem is that this is not a case of everyone in the FBI failing to appreciate the potential consequences. It is obvious that the agents in Minneapolis who were closest to the action and in the best position to gauge the situation locally did fully appreciate the terrorist risk/danger posed by Moussaoui. Doesnt that sound familiar in your company? The branch offices never think headquarters knows whats really going on, while the home office VPs think the branch guys are a bunch of whiners without the chops to make it in the big time at HQ. But in this evergreen of bureaucratic in-fighting, one of HQs best arguments is usually that unlike the branch offices, it sees the big picture. This time, as Rowley notes, Frasca and company not only failed to see the big picture, they worked actively to keep others from trying to see it. Thats quite an indictment. And thats only part of her bombshell. Rowley, who is, fortunately for her, close to retirement, also goes after Mueller himself. I have deep concerns that a delicate and subtle shading/skewering of facts by you and others at the highest levels of the FBI has occurred and is occurring. She argues that Muellers reorganization, which would further empower the FBIs Washington headquarters, is exactly the wrong approach to preventing terrorism. As if to confirm Rowleys harsh judgment, Mueller last week classified her memo, though we learned after it was leaked that there is nothing even vaguely compromising about FBI sources and methods contained in it. He classified it for the same reason Bush and Cheney dont want an independent commission to investigate what happened: Its embarrassing. Now its up to the rest of us to decide. [Unfortunately its not. If it were the problem would have been addresses decades ago.] Is embarrassment a proper standard for classifying documents and sweeping poor performance under the carpet? Or is it perhaps more patrioticand better for preventing a
Why asymmetrical warefare practitioners have nothing to fear from the FBI (and probably the rest of U.S. intelligence/law enforcement)
[An edited copy of Who Let the Terrorists Succeed? http://www.msnbc.com/news/758330.asp] The now-famous memo Minneapolis agent Coleen Rowley sent to Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, now widely known as the Federal Bureau of Incompetence. The May 21, 2002 memo, obtained by Time, is one scary document. It suggests [SURPRISE!] that we have a bunch of time-servers protecting our security, which no one is in charge of anything. If any of this changed after September 11, Rowley, a highly regarded veteran of the bureau, does not say so. Without mentioning names, Rowley basically fingers a mid-level FBI supervisory agent in the Hoover Building (in Washington) named Dave Frasca, who was supposed to be running the task force on religious fanatics. After the Minneapolis office took flight-student and hijacker-wannabe Zacarias Moussaoui into custody and obtained intelligence from the French indicating that he had terrorist ties, alert Minnesota agents didnt just passively push the case up the chain of command. They became, in Rowleys words, desperate to search his computer laptop. So desperate that they risked the wrath of higher ups by committing a real pre-9-11 no-no: contacting the CIA. Headquarters personnel didnt just deny the request to probe Moussaoui further. Even though they were privy to many more sources of intelligence information than field agents, as Rowley plaintively put it, they continued to, almost inexplicably, throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis by-now desperate attempts to obtain a search warrant. Because Frascas not commenting publicly, we havent heard the other side of the story. But as anyone who has ever worked in an office knows, HQ always has its own take on events, and sometimes its even right. In this case a federal judge in Washington, Royce C. Lambreth, grew annoyed at the poor documentation involved in requests from federal prosecutors for search warrants and wiretaps. One prosecutor so angered Lambreth that he was actually barred from seeking any more approvals from judges, a move that sent a chilling career message down through the ranks of the Justice Department. So Frasca, knowing which way the wind was blowing in Washington, wasnt just going to rubber stamp the Minneapolis request. [Does this mean the complaints by civil libertarians that FESA were being heard?] Moreover, the very fact that HQ is, in Rowleys words, privy to many more sources of intelligence is actually a hindrance, not necessarily a sign of negligence. The more intelligence chaff that comes in, the harder it is to find the wheat. Frasca should have the chance to explain that, and Judge Lambreth should explain why he thought the warrant process was being abused. But Rowleys certainly correct when she tells Mueller that the problem with chalking this all up to the 20/20 hindsight is perfect problem is that this is not a case of everyone in the FBI failing to appreciate the potential consequences. It is obvious that the agents in Minneapolis who were closest to the action and in the best position to gauge the situation locally did fully appreciate the terrorist risk/danger posed by Moussaoui. Doesnt that sound familiar in your company? The branch offices never think headquarters knows whats really going on, while the home office VPs think the branch guys are a bunch of whiners without the chops to make it in the big time at HQ. But in this evergreen of bureaucratic in-fighting, one of HQs best arguments is usually that unlike the branch offices, it sees the big picture. This time, as Rowley notes, Frasca and company not only failed to see the big picture, they worked actively to keep others from trying to see it. Thats quite an indictment. And thats only part of her bombshell. Rowley, who is, fortunately for her, close to retirement, also goes after Mueller himself. I have deep concerns that a delicate and subtle shading/skewering of facts by you and others at the highest levels of the FBI has occurred and is occurring. She argues that Muellers reorganization, which would further empower the FBIs Washington headquarters, is exactly the wrong approach to preventing terrorism. As if to confirm Rowleys harsh judgment, Mueller last week classified her memo, though we learned after it was leaked that there is nothing even vaguely compromising about FBI sources and methods contained in it. He classified it for the same reason Bush and Cheney dont want an independent commission to investigate what happened: Its embarrassing. Now its up to the rest of us to decide. [Unfortunately its not. If it were the problem would have been addresses decades ago.] Is embarrassment a proper standard for classifying documents and sweeping poor performance under the carpet? Or is it perhaps more patrioticand better for preventing a
