Re: [VERY Offtopic] Politics (was Debian Package Integrity)
Ok I've resisted this thread for quite a while because its so off topic...
but since nobody is complaining... I'm going to post a facinating letter
from inside the FBI I ran across recently. I havn't done much work
checking authenticity but even its bogus it makes some great points.
This is long so I hope everybody who isn't interesed has already flagged
this thread to go directly to /dev/null ;)
Here it is:
Rowley letter to FBI director
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3738192.html
http://truthout.org/docs_03/030803A.shtml
"We should be deluding neither ourselves nor the American people that
there is any way the FBI, despite the various improvements you are
implementing, will be able to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely
head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq."
Minneapolis, MN 55401
February 26, 2003
FBI Director Robert Mueller
FBI Headquarters
Washington D.C.
Dear Director Mueller:
In June, 2002, on the eve of my testimony to the Senate Judiciary
Committee, you told me that you appreciate constructive criticism and that
FBI agents should feel free to voice serious concerns they may have about
senior-level FBI actions. Since then I have availed myself twice of your
stated openness.
At this critical point in our country's history I have decided to try once
again, on an issue of even more consequence for the internal security
posture of our country. That posture has been weakened by the diversion of
attention from al-Qaeda to our government^Òs plan to invade Iraq, a step
that will, in all likelihood, bring an exponential increase in the
terrorist threat to the U.S., both at home and abroad.
In your recent testimony to the Senate, you noted that "the al-Qaeda
network will remain for the foreseeable future the most immediate and
serious threat facing this country," adding that "the prevention of
another terrorist attack remains the FBI's top priority." You then noted
that a "U.S.-Iraq war could prompt Baghdad to more directly engage
al-Qaeda and perhaps provide it with weapons of mass destruction." But you
did not connect these very important dots.
Your recent briefings of field management staff have thrown light on the
immense pressures you face as you try to keep the FBI intact and
functioning amid persistent calls for drastic restructuring. You have made
it clear that the FBI is perilously close to being divided up and is
depending almost solely upon the good graces of Attorney General Ashcroft
and President Bush for its continued existence. Clearly, this tense
environment poses a special challenge to those like you who are
responsible for providing unbiased, objective intelligence and national
security advice to the country's leaders. But I would implore you to step
out of this pressure-cooker for a few minutes and consider the following:
1) The FBI is apparently the source for the public statement that there
are 5,000 al-Qaeda terrorists already in the U.S. I would ask you to
inquire as to whether this figure is based on any hard data. If it is,
rather, an estimate based largely on speculation, this can only feed the
suspicion, inside the organization and out, that it is largely the product
of a desire to gain favor with the administration, to gain support for FBI
initiatives and possibly even to gain support for the administration's
initiatives.
2) What is the FBI's evidence with respect to a connection between
al-Qaeda and Iraq? Polls show that Americans are completely confused about
who was responsible for the suicidal attacks on 9-11 with many blaming
Iraq. And it is clear that this impression has been fostered by many in
the Administration. As far as the FBI is concerned, is the evidence of
such a link as "bulletproof," as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld claims, or
"scant," as General Brent Scowcroft, Chairman of the President's
Intelligence Advisory Board has said? The answer to this is of key
importance in determining whether war against Iraq makes any sense from
the FBI's internal security point of view. If the FBI does have
independent data verifying such a connection, it would seem such
information should be shared, at least internally within the FBI.
3) If, as you have said, "the prevention of another terrorist attack
remains the FBI's top priority," why is it that we have not attempted to
interview Zacarias Moussaoui, the only suspect in U.S. custody charged
with having a direct hand in the horror of 9-11? Although al-Qaeda has
taken pains to compartmentalize its operations to avoid compromise by any
one operative, information obtained from some al-Qaeda operatives has
nonetheless proved invaluable. Moussaoui almost certainly would know of
other al-Qaeda contacts, possibly in the U.S., and would also be able to
alert us to the motive behind his and Mohammed Atta's interest in crop
dusting.
Similarly, there is the question as to why little or no apparent effort
has been made to interview convicted terrorist Richard Reid, who obviously
depended upon other al-Qaeda operatives in fashioning his shoe explosive.
Nor have possible links between Moussaoui and Reid been fully
investigated. It therefore appears that the government may have sacrificed
the possibility of acquiring information pertinent to future attacks, in
order to conduct criminal prosecution of these two individuals. Although
prosecution serves worthy purposes, including deterrence, standard
practice in "Organized Crime/Terrorism 101" dictates imaginative,
concerted attempts to make inroads into well-organized, cohesive groups.
And sometimes that requires "dealing with the devil."
In short, it is a matter of priorities. And lack of follow-through with
regard to Moussaoui and Reid gives a hollow ring to our "top priority;" i.
e., preventing another terrorist attack.
4) It is not clear that you have been adequately apprized of the potential
damage to our liaison relationships with European intelligence agencies
that is likely to flow from the growing tension over Iraq between senior
U.S. officials and their counterparts in key West European countries.
There are far more al-Qaeda operatives in Europe than in the U.S., and
European intelligence services, including the French, are on the
frontlines in investigating and pursuing them. Indeed, the Europeans have
successfully uncovered and dismantled a number of active cells in their
countries.
In the past, FBI liaison agents stationed in Europe benefitted from the
expertise and cooperation of European law enforcement and intelligence
officers. Information was shared freely, and was of substantial help to us
in our investigations in the U.S. You will recall that prior to 9-11, it
was the French who passed us word of Moussaoui's link to terrorism.
5) I know the FBI is no longer (or will shortly be no longer) in charge of
regulating the color codes, but I expect we will still have input. I
realize that decisions to change color codes are made at the most senior
level, but perhaps you can caution senior officials about the downside to
alarming the public unless there is adequate reason to do so. Increased
vigilance must be encouraged when needed, but the FBI's Joint Terrorism
Task Forces can easily get bogged down in attempting to pursue all the
leads engendered by panicky citizens. This, in turn, draws resources away
from more important, well predicated and already established
investigations.
Unintended consequences like the recent stampede in the Chicago dance club
(which initial news accounts reported to be the case) can also occur when
the public is put on these heightened alerts. The terrorists win in such
circumstances even without attacking.
6) The vast majority of the one thousand plus persons "detained" in the
wake of 9-11 did not turn out to be terrorists. They were mostly illegal
aliens. We have every right, of course, to deport those identified as
illegal aliens during the course of any investigation. But after 9-11,
Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seem to be
essentially PR purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the
number of detentions in order to supply grist for statements on our
progress in fighting terrorism. The balance between individuals' civil
liberties and the need for effective investigation is hard to maintain
even during so-called normal times, let alone times of increased terrorist
threat or war. It is, admittedly, a difficult balancing act. But from what
I have observed, particular vigilance may be required to head off undue
pressure (including subtle encouragement) to detain or "round up
suspects" particularly those of Arabic origin.
7) As I believe you know, I have a reputation for being quite
"conservative" on legal and policy issues regarding law enforcement. I
have complained loudly on occasions when some of our laws and procedures
have-unnecessarily, in my view, hindered our ability to move boldly
against crime. At the same time, I know from experience that the FBI's
policy on permissible use of deadly force has served the FBI and the
country well. It should be noted, however, that the Administration's new
policy of "preemptive strikes" abroad is not consistent with the
Department of Justice's (DOJ's) "deadly force policy" for law enforcement
officers. DOJ policy restricts federal agents to using deadly force only
when presented with an imminent threat of death or serious injury
(essentially in self-defense or defense of an innocent third party). I
believe it would be prudent to be on guard against the possibility that
the looser "preemptive strike" rationale being applied to situations
abroad could migrate back home, fostering a more permissive attitude
towards shootings by law enforcement officers in this country.
8) I believe the FBI, by drawing on the perspective gained from its recent
history, can make a unique contribution to the discussion on Iraq. The
misadventure in Waco took place well before your time as Director, but you
will probably recall that David Koresh exerted the same kind of oppressive
control over members of his Branch Davidian followers, as Saddam Hussein
does over the Iraqis. The parallel does not stop there.
Law enforcement authorities were certain Koresh had accumulated a
formidable arsenal of weapons and ammunition at his compound and may have
been planning on using them someday. The FBI also had evidence that he was
sexually abusing young girls in the cult. After the first law enforcement
assault failed, after losing the element of surprise, the Branch Davidian
compound was contained and steadily increasing pressure was applied for
weeks. But then the FBI decided it could wait no longer and mounted the
second assault with disastrous consequences. The children we sought to
liberate all died when Koresh and his followers set fires leading to their
mass death and destruction.
The FBI, of course, cannot be blamed for what Koresh set in motion.
Nevertheless, we learned some lessons from this unfortunate episode and
quickly explored better ways to deal with such challenges. As a direct
result of that exploration, many subsequent criminal/terrorist "standoffs"
in which the FBI has been involved have been resolved peacefully and
effectively. I would suggest that present circumstances vis-a-vis Iraq are
very analagous, and that you consider sharing with senior administration
officials the important lessons learned by the FBI at Waco.
You are only too well aware that fighting the war on terrorism and crime
is an unbelievably difficult mission that will only become more difficult
in the years to come, adversely affecting future generations of Americans.
The extraneous pressures currently being brought to bear by politicians of
both parties upon the FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies, however,
only worsen the present situation.
I know that my comments appear so presumptuous for a person of my rank in
the organization and I'm very sorry for that impression. A word of
explanation is therefore probably in order as to why I feel moved to write
you directly about these issues. A good part of the reason lies in a
promise I made to myself after I realized the enormity of what resulted
when FBI Headquarters Supervisory personnel dismissed the warnings of
Minneapolis agents pre-September 11, 2001. I was well aware of the
forceful but frustrated efforts being made by Minneapolis case agents and
their supervisor in their efforts to get Headquarters to move. But since
my own role was peripheral, I did not think I could be of much additional
help. Since that fateful day of September 11, 2001, however, I have not
ceased to regret that perhaps I did not do all that I might have done.
I promised myself that in the future I would always try.
I appreciate that you alone do not determine policy on the terrorist
threat from inside or outside the country, that, indeed, you may have
little influence in the crafting of broad domestic or foreign policy. And
it seems clear to me now that the decision to attack Iraq was taken some
time ago and you, even as FBI Director, may be little more than a helpless
bystander.
Such an attack, though, may have grave consequences for your ability to
discharge your responsibility to protect Americans, and it is altogether
likely that you will find yourself a helpless bystander to a rash of
9-11s. The bottom line is this: We should be deluding neither ourselves
nor the American people that there is any way the FBI, despite the various
improvements you are implementing, will be able to stem the flood of
terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq.
What troubles me most is that I have no assurance that you have made that
clear to the president.
If you believe my concerns have merit, I would ask you to share them with
the president and attorney general. We no doubt can agree that our
Government has a gargantuan task facing it of melding American foreign
policy to make the world, and primarily United States soil, a safer place.
I pray for our American and allied world leaders^Ò success in achieving
this most important objective.
Thank you so much for allowing me to express these thoughts. They are
personal in nature and should not be construed as representing the view of
any FBI unit or other agents.
Yours truly,
Coleen Rowley
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Andreas Kotes wrote:
> Hi!
>
> this is off topic, but in case you've been wondering, too:
>
> * Joost Beintema <joost.from.fuzzums@beintema.dds.nl> [20030308 04:47]:
> > > Your comment seems to lay blame for 9/11 on the intelligence community.
> > > It's fair to say that they had major flaws at that time (and possibly
> > > now as well). You could argue that this specific incident could have
> > > been prevented if certain measures were in place. Keep in mind, the
> > > perpetrators were a determined group that was willing to accept death in
> > > the pursuit of their goal. That's a combination that is nearly unstoppable.
> >
> > All I hear is a war-yelling Bush but I haven' heared any good story (from
> > politicians) about the WHY of attacks.
>
> economic reasons:
>
> - the oil price influences a HUGE part of the economy, having to pay the
> market price for iraq oil doesn't work
> - the bush family is a not-so-small player in weapons industry as well
> as oil industry
> - deficit/military/government spending is good for the economy (any
> economist can tell you that) .. the formula:
>
> GDP = C+G+I+X-Im
> (where:
> GDP == Gross Domestic Product
> C == Consumption
> G == Government spending
> I == Investments
> X == Exports
> Im == Imports)
>
> .. this very formular also explains tax cuts, the deficit, the hype
> against foreign products / Imports, etc.
> - military spending:
> Irak: ~ 20.0% of GDP
> USA: ~ 5.5% of GDP (!)
> Germany: ~ 3.5% of GDP
> .. reasoning goes that a raise of spending for weapons beyond a
> general percentage is a precursor for war - as it has always been
>
> the actual values don't seem to matter much - the fact that the US
> just have a _huge_ GDP does count a lot .. >>$400 _billion_ military
> expenses a year are 'only' 5.5% .. the ~$26 billion offered to turkey
> are interesting, too. far more interesting are the ~$15 _million_ for
> post-war refugee help (UNHCR).
>
> another question: how could iraq to something decent using its money,
> considering the sanctions and the interweavement of countries these
> times?
> - old ammunition and weapon technologies have to be -uh- put out of
> service
>
> political reasons:
>
> - gaining access to he iraq oil fields would lessen the influence of
> OPEC, thus the oil price
> - solving the palaestina/israel conflict would compromise israel
> - disrupting europe unity means keeping relative strength
>
> pyschological reasons:
>
> - giving in to europe would mean losing face
> - admiting one was wrong would mean losing face
> - searching problems everywhere else but at home is far easier than
> facing reality
> - powerlessness (e.g. regarding 9/11) of oneself usually results in
> applying power to others
>
> .. just guessing. I'm pretty sure there are more in each category.
>
> Count
>
> --
> Andreas Kotes - ICQ: 3741366 - The views expressed herein are (only) mine.
> Unser Leben ist das, wozu unser Denken es macht. -- OpenPGP key 0x8F94C228
> Our Life is what our thinking makes it.. Your mind is a weapon! Arm it ..
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-security-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: