Flushing out some deep undercover birds!
Sightings from The Catbird Seat
~ o ~
PART II - THE FBI
September 9, 2007
Judge Strikes Down Parts
of Patriot Act
By WILLIAM McCALL, AP
PORTLAND, Ore. - Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are
unconstitutional because they allow secret wiretapping and searches without
a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act , as amended by the Patriot Act , "now permits the
executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of
American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of
the Fourth Amendment."
Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield sought the ruling in a lawsuit against
the federal government after he was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the
Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.
The federal government apologized and settled part of the lawsuit for $2
million after admitting a fingerprint was misread. But as part of the
settlement, Mayfield retained the right to challenge parts of the Patriot
Act, which greatly expanded the authority of law enforcers to investigate
suspected acts of terrorism.
Mayfield claimed that secret searches of his house and office under the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment's
guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Aiken agreed with
Mayfield, repeatedly criticizing the government.
"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law with
unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional
authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," she wrote.
By asking her to dismiss Mayfield's lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S.
attorney general's office was "asking this court to, in essence, amend
the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of
any real meaning. This court declines to do so."
Elden Rosenthal, an attorney for Mayfield, issued a statement on his behalf
praising the judge, saying she "has upheld both the tradition of judicial
independence, and our nation's most cherished principle of the right to
be secure in one's own home."
Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said the agency was reviewing the
decision, and he declined to comment further.
The ruling probably won't have any immediate affect on enforcement under
the Patriot Act , according to legal experts who predicted the government
would quickly appeal.
"But it's an important first step," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the
American Civil Liberties Union's national security project.
Jaffer noted that the Patriot Act carries dozens of provisions and that
several have been challenged, but that this is one of the first major rulings
on Fourth Amendment rights.
"This is as clear a violation of the Fourth Amendment as you'll ever find,"
Garrett Epps, a constitutional law expert at the University of Oregon, said
the ruling adds to the poor record that the Bush administration has piled up
in defending the Patriot Act .
"It's embarrassing," Epps said. "It represents another judicial repudiation of
this administration's terrorist surveillance policies."
A federal judge in New York this month handed the ACLU a victory in a
challenge to the Patriot Act on behalf of an Internet service provider that
was issued a "national security letter" demanding customer phone and
computer records. The judge in that case ruled the FBI must justify to a
court the need for secrecy for more than a brief and reasonable period of
Mayfield, a Muslim convert, was taken into custody on May 6, 2004, because
of a fingerprint found on a detonator at the scene of the Madrid bombing.
The FBI said the print matched Mayfield's. He was released about two
weeks later, and the FBI admitted it had erred in saying the fingerprints
were his and later apologized to him.
Before his arrest, the FBI put Mayfield under 24-hour surveillance, listened
to his phone calls and surreptitiously searched his home and law office.
The Mayfield case has been an embarrassment for the federal government.
Last year, the Justice Department's internal watchdog faulted the FBI for
sloppy work in mistakenly linking Mayfield to the Madrid bombings. That
report said federal prosecutors and FBI agents had made inaccurate and
ambiguous statements to a federal judge to get arrest and criminal search
warrants against Mayfield.
Congress passed the Patriot Act with little debate shortly after the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks to help counter terrorist activities. It gave federal law
enforcers the authority to search telephone and e-mail communications and
expanded the Treasury Department's regulation of financial transactions
involving foreign nationals. The law was renewed in 2005.
In early August, the Bush administration persuaded lawmakers to expand
the government's power to listen in on any foreign communication it
deemed of interest without a court order, even if an American was a
party. The expanded surveillance authority expires early next year. As
Congress takes a closer look at the law, many Democrats want to rein in
language that many consider overly broad.
Copyright 2007 - The Associated Press.
March 9, 2007
Congress Must Finally Hold Public
Hearings on Edmonds Case
By Mike Mejia
It has been almost five years now since former FBI translator Sibel
Edmonds first contacted the Senate Judiciary Committee to reveal the
shocking tale of Turkish bribery of high-level U.S. officials.
In that time span, Edmonds has been misled by members of Congress on
several occasions: Numerous promises have been made to the whistleblower
by the Senate Judiciary Committee that her allegations would be exposed in
Those promises have rung hollow.
Now, with the Democratic victory in Congressional elections, coupled with
revelations that many of the tapes she translated were probably obtained
illegally through FISA warrants, the Turkish translator's case has gained
new relevance. Edmonds recently presented to Congress her petition of
15,000 individual signatures and the support of 30 organizations including
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), OMB Watch, Project on
Government Oversight (POGO), Government Accountability Project (GAP),
People for the American Way, and the Liberty Coalition, who have sponsored
this petition and joined her campaign. Furthermore, Edmonds has received
assurances that the House Government Reform Committee will hold hearings.
And one would hope that with a very good public servant, Henry Waxman,
chairing the Government Reform Committee, a full public airing of Ms.
Edmonds' allegations would be a foregone conclusion.
Unfortunately, time and time again the Congress has proven that, absent
public pressure, a case like that of Turkey's corruption of U.S. government
officials will not automatically receive its due attention. And although the
Democrats' recent rise to power brings new hope, it won't automatically
Unlike the numerous Iraq War investigations that Waxman and other
Democrats in Congress are planning, the issues brought up by Sibel Edmonds
may tarnish the images not just of the Bush Administration, but also of
certain elements of the Clinton Administration.
Further complicating matters is that members of both political parties in
Congress were also allegedly the recipient of Turkish gratuities: When a
country like Turkey decides to engage in illegal espionage and lobbying, it
spreads its funds generously.
And though Edmonds' case involves the nuclear black market, not even the
potential of a nuke reaching American soil is guaranteed to motivate our
public servants, especially when they fear some of the muck might splatter
on their own Party.
One must also recall the case of another famous whistleblower from years
past to fully understand the former FBI linguist's dilemma. While it is well-known that Daniel Ellsberg 'leaked' the Pentagon Papers to the press in
order to expose the lies used to mislead the country into Vietnam, what is
not as well known is the fact that Ellsberg first presented this information
to representatives of Congress- including hallowed Democrats like William
According to Ellsberg, Fulbright and other Democrats in Congress feared
bureaucratic retribution from the Nixon Administration and strung Ellsberg
along with promises for almost two years. It was only because of the foot
dragging by liberal Democrats that Ellsberg was finally forced to go to the
New York Times.
In Edmonds' case, even the press might not be much of an option. The
mainstream media has continually ignored each shocking new revelation
surrounding her tenure at the FBI. To be sure, certain outlets have
touched parts of the story, from CBS 60 Minutes' "Lost in Translation" to
Vanity Fair's "An Inconvenient Patriot", but I am told many other
journalists have sat on information given to them by Edmonds and others.
Such information could have blown her case wide open by now. In
frustration, Sibel Edmonds has turned to the activists and journalists in
the blogosphere in order to build momentum for hearings in the Congress.
She is correct to do so. When all is said and done, exposing Edmonds'
charges and curbing the abuse of the state secrets privilege will only
happen with grassroots pressure. Simply electing Democrats will not result
in uncovering and rooting out this kind of rank corruption in the Executive
Branch and Congress. Similarly, electing the right folks has not resulted in a
rapid withdrawal from Iraq.
The only real hope for making these hearings happen is to follow-up on the
Democratic electoral victory by holding the politicians' feet to the fire. As
Ellsberg is fond of saying, they may not see the light, but they'll feel the
Let's make them feel the heat.
See also: The Buzzards in the Halls of Justice; The Antechamber; The Puna
March 29, 2006
2006 PEN/Newman’s Own
First Amendment Award
Translator Fired from FBI for Blowing Whistle on Intelligence Failures to
Receive 2006 PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award
New York, NY —PEN American Center has named Sibel Edmonds, a
translator who was fired from her job at the FBI after complaining of
intelligence failures and poor performance in her unit, as the recipient of
this year’s prestigious PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award. Ms.
Edmonds will receive the $20,000 prize at PEN’s annual Gala on April 18,
2006 at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.
Shortly after 9/11, Edmonds was hired as an FBI Language Specialist for
Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani. In her work, Edmonds discovered poorly
translated documents relevant to the 9-11 attacks and reported these to her
She also expressed concerns about a co-worker’s relationship with a foreign
intelligence officer, and reported being told to work slowly to give the
appearance that her department was overworked, despite the large backlog
of documents needing translation.
Edmonds followed all appropriate procedures for registering her concerns.
However, instead of acting on her information, the FBI fired Edmonds in
March 2002, claiming she had “committed security violations and had
disrupted the translation unit.”
In June 2002, two U.S. Senators wrote the FBI demanding information on
Edmond’s case, noting that many of her allegations had been confirmed by
the FBI in unclassified briefings to Congress. The following month, Edmonds
filed a lawsuit challenging the FBI’s retaliatory actions, but in July of 2004
Edmonds v. Department of Justice was dismissed by the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia after Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked
“State Secrets Privilege” to prevent any materials that supported her case
from becoming public. The Supreme Court has refused to hear her appeal.
In early 2004, an unclassified summary of the Justice Department's
Inspector General's report on Edmonds confirmed that many of her claims
"were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that
her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI's
decision to terminate her services."
In February of that year, Edmonds testified before the 9/11 Commission
about problems at the FBI. Three months later, the Justice Department
retroactively classified Edmonds’ briefings to Senators and the 9-11
Commission, as well the information the Senators had cited in their letter to
the FBI, and forced the Members of Congress who had information about
Edmonds’ case posted on their web sites to remove the documents.
In addition to courageously pursuing her case, Edmonds founded the National
Security Whistleblowers Coalition in August 2004. The NSWBC organizes
current or former government employees who have been punished for
exposing official wrongdoing and advocates for legislation to protect the
rights of National Security whistleblowers.
In announcing the award today in New York, PEN Freedom to Write Program
Director Larry Siems praised Edmonds’ commitment to preserving the free
flow of information in the United States in a time of growing international
isolation and increasing government secrecy.
“It is hard to think of a position in public service more valuable to the nation
in these turbulent times than a language specialist who is engaged in making
important international information accessible to government officials and
policymakers,” said Siems.
“Sibel Edmonds understood the importance of her position and carried out
her work with energy and honor – only to face retaliation and dismissal.
Unintimidated, she has fought to inform Congress and the American people
on the urgent need for better translation services in areas vital to our
national interests. PEN is proud to recognize her for her work as a language
specialist, her heroic efforts to improve our country’s translation services,
and her current efforts to organize and protect government whistleblowers.”
Siems noted that this year’s PEN/Newman’s Own Award comes amid a spate
of news reports of government retaliation against employees who expose
wrongdoing or dissent from official policy.
“Sibel Edmonds’ Kafkaesque ordeal underscores how easily government
powers, especially powers wielded in the name of national security, can be
abused to keep the public in the dark about official failings. PEN is deeply
troubled by Sibel Edmonds’ story and by the growing number of reports of
efforts by the administration to silence government employees.”...
~ ~ ~
For more, GO TO > > > http://www.justacitizen.com
January 19, 2005
Groups support FBI
By Chris Strohm. email@example.com
A coalition of nonprofit groups asked a federal appeals court Wednesday to
give FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds her day in court.
The coalition filed an amicus brief supporting Edmonds' appeal of a federal
district court's ruling last July that dismissed her lawsuit.
The brief was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. It comes less than a week after the Justice Department's
inspector general issued a summary report concluding that the FBI failed to
properly investigate charges made by Edmonds that there were security
breaches, mismanagement and possible espionage within the FBI's
translation unit in late 2001 and early 2002. The report also concluded that
the FBI fired Edmonds mainly for bringing forth the accusations.
The bulk of the IG report is classified by the FBI.
The American Civil Liberties Union also filed an amicus brief last week asking
the appeals court to reinstate Edmonds' lawsuit.
Edmonds, who was born in Iran but is now a U.S. citizen, was hired as an FBI
contract linguist immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to help
translate backlogged material. She quickly became concerned about the
activities of a fellow linguist. She alleged that the other linguist had an
association and improper contacts with one or more targets of FBI
investigations, and was suspected of leaking information to one or more
targets to which she was assigned to perform translation services.
Edmonds was fired in March 2002 for "disruptive" behavior. Attorney
General John Ashcroft asserted "state secrets privilege" over Edmonds,
saying that information about her case would cause serious damage to the
security and foreign policy interests of the United States if publicly
disclosed. The gag order on Edmonds remains in effect.
Edmonds filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department but never got a
hearing. Judge Reggie Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia dismissed her case last July, ruling that she would be unable to
pursue her claims against the government without disclosing privileged
At the time, Edmonds noted that the court heard the government's evidence
in private, never giving her the ability to respond. Walton acknowledged that
his ruling was "draconian," and "a drastic remedy that has rarely been
The legal brief filed Tuesday was submitted by 14 nonprofit groups that
either advocate for open government or have an interest in obtaining
information related to 9/11.
The brief argues that the lower court could have taken measures to give
Edmonds a defense while protecting sensitive and classified information.
"The District Court's failure to determine whether the government's
assertion of the state secrets privilege was a false alarm not only served to
unfairly deny Ms. Edmonds her day in court, it countenanced a wave of
unnecessary secrecy that denies the public access to government
information concerning one of the most significant events in our nation's
modern history," the brief states.
The brief charges that the government used state secrets privilege "as a
litigation tactic to deprive Ms. Edmonds of the right to prove in court what
the inspector general has found."
The appeals court will hear arguments on Edmonds' appeal on April 21. The
groups plan to hold a press conference in Washington on Jan. 26.
The FBI issued a short statement in response to the IG report, outlining
management improvements that have been made in its Language Services
Program. The bureau said it continues to investigate Edmonds' allegations
against the fellow linguist.
An FBI spokeswoman had no additional comment.
The inspector general concluded that many allegations made by Edmonds
were supported, but not all of them, such as a claim that linguists were
directed to slow the pace of their work so that material to be translated
would pile up, giving the FBI a basis to request more translators.
The IG added, however, that the FBI still has yet to properly investigate
whether espionage was occurring within the translation program.
"The majority of the allegations raised by Edmonds related to the actions of
a co-worker," the IG said. "The allegations raised serious concerns that, if
true, could potentially have extremely damaging consequences for the FBI.
These allegations warranted a thorough and careful review by the FBI. Our
investigation concluded that the FBI did not, and still has not, adequately
investigated these allegations."
Edmonds also alleged that the FBI possessed documents that clearly showed
the 9/11 hijackers were in the country and plotting to use airplanes as
missiles to carry out an attack in a major city several months before the
attacks occurred. She said the documents included information relating to
terrorist financial activities.
The IG report said Edmonds never raised those allegations with its office
and, therefore, they were not investigated.
~ ~ ~
For more about Sybil Edmonds, go to: http://www.justacitizen.com
April 11, 2003
FBI SAYS ITS AGENT HAD AFFAIR
WITH CHINESE SPY
Accused woman was prominent Republican activist
By Erica Werner, Associated Press
LOS ANGELES - If the FBI is right, one of its own agents carried on an
affair with a prominent Republican activist who happened to be a Chinese
The affair allegedly gave the spy, nicknamed “Parlor Maid,” access to
classified documents while she wined and dined some of California’s top
politicians and businessmen.
“Basically you see her everywhere,” said Paul Zee, a businessman and former
mayor of South Pasadena who is active in the Chinese-American community.
Authorities said Katrina Leung, 49, was recruited to work for the FBI in the
early 1980s and soon began an affair with her handler, former supervisory
Special Agent James J. Smith, 59.
She would copy classified documents he left unattended when he came to
debrief her at the posh home she shared with her husband and their son in
wealthy San Marino, according to a prosecution affidavit.
Attorneys for both have denied the accusations.
The FBI alleges it paid Leung $1.7 million over 20 years to act as an
informer, and during that time she allegedly had an affair with a second
agent, whom officials did not identify. The second agent learned of Leung’s
unauthorized contacts with officials in Beijing and alerted Smith, but Smith
continued his relationship with Leung, authorities said.
Leung was charged Wednesday with obtaining a classified national security
document for purposes of aiding a foreign nation, Smith was charged with
gross negligence for allowing Leung to obtain the documents. They could
face up to 10 years in prison if convicted.
Prosecutors said they found FBI documents at Leung’s home, including phone
directories and a secret 1997 memorandum about Chinese fugitives that
contained “national defense information.” The affidavit said that an FBI
agent secretly searched her luggage when she left Los Angeles for China in
November and found six photographs of current and former FBI agents.
The photos were not found when the luggage was secretly searched again
upon her return....
The house Leung and her husband, Kam, own has four stone lions around a
fountain, and a pool and guest house. The two worked as consultants, and
Katrina Leung brought neighbors cookies and cake at Christmas.
Leung worked with many Chinese-American groups, and her former posts
included secretary of the National Association of Chinese Americans.
A naturalized American citizen and a registered Republican, she donated
money to Republicans including Rep. David Dreier and failed GOP
gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon, as well as some Asian-American
Democrats including Chu, records show. She raised money for Simon and
former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan.
She accompanied Riordan on a trip to China in 1998 and joined Mayor James
Hahn’s delegation when he went to China last year.
Leung and her husband donated about $25,000 last year to candidates for
state office, including a $10,000 donation to Riordan.
According to the federal affidavit, Leung has admitted setting up bank
accounts in Hong Kong to which she pretended to make mortgage payments
on the home she bought about 12 years ago for $1.4 million, though she was
actually paying herself.
That enabled her to claim mortgage interest tax deductions after she
had actually paid off her mortgage.
For more on Bill Simon, GO TO > > > William Simon Says
For more on the China Connection, GO TO > > > Crouching Dragons ~ Hidden
June 9, 2002
FBI too top heavy, whistleblower tells panel
By Toni Locy, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — FBI agent Coleen Rowley went to Congress on Thursday to
blow the whistle on her own agency, which she said is too big, too slow and
too set in its ways. "We need to streamline," Rowley, legal counsel to the
FBI's Minneapolis office, told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "We need
that agility and ability to react. If you get too top heavy with too many
layers, you are going to be stymied." Rowley, who dreamed of being an FBI
agent as a little girl growing up in Iowa, received star-witness treatment.
She was greeted by the sound of shutters clicking madly as more than two
dozen photographers jockeyed for the best shot of the FBI's most famous
Two senators escorted her to the witness table, where only an hour before,
FBI Director Robert Mueller was grilled for more than four hours about her
critique of the way FBI headquarters handled the investigation of suspected
terrorist Zaccarias Moussaoui in August.
In a letter to Mueller on May 21, Rowley had charged that officials at FBI
headquarters had thwarted the efforts of agents in the field and that he
and other senior FBI officials had "circled the wagons" and skewed facts in
their post-Sept. 11 accounts of what they had known before the attacks.
Rowley claimed that FBI headquarters shelved requests from the
Minneapolis office in the weeks before the attacks to aggressively
investigate Moussaoui, who was being held in Minnesota on immigration
violations and now is charged with conspiring with al-Qaeda operatives in the
Sept. 11 attacks.
Mueller told the committee that he plans to change the culture of the FBI
from an agency that reacts to events to one that can meet the dangers
posed by "terrorist groups that are as determined as ever" to destroy the
Rowley said she was "encouraged" by Mueller's ideas for reforming the FBI.
"He really has an extremely difficult job, and that's an understatement," she
But Rowley also showed flashes of the feistiness that led her to jeopardize a
21-year career and write a scathing letter to the FBI director.
She told one senator, Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., she had already answered
the question he posed — while he was out of the room. And she stuck to her
view that the FBI has too many layers of supervision — a position at odds
with Mueller's plans to reform the FBI by shifting hundreds of agents and
creating new offices to gather and analyze intelligence.
"Seven to nine layers (of supervision) is ridiculous," Rowley said.
She said one impetus for her letter was a report that Mueller intended to
form "super squads" of managers who she thought — erroneously, she now
admits — would come into field offices and "micro-manage" cases.
Such a plan, she said, would "fly in the face of what we should have learned
from Sept. 11." Mueller's plan, however, would send agents, not managers, to
help field offices when needed.
"Mistakes are inevitable," Rowley said during the hearing. "But a distinction
can and should be drawn between those mistakes made when trying to do the
right thing and those mistakes (made) due to selfish motives."
Too often, she said, agents who rise through the ranks of the FBI worry
about preserving the agency's "pecking order" and advancing their own
"I've heard there is a saying at FBI headquarters," Rowley said in a nine-page statement to the committee. "Big cases, big problems; little cases, little
problems; no cases, no problems.' "
In her written statement, Rowley exhibited a biting sense of humor: "The
resulting cumbersomeness of getting approval for even the smallest decision
is obvious. ... Like the plant in the Little Shop of Horrors movie, the
bureaucracy just keeps saying 'feed me, feed me.' "
Mueller renewed his pledge that no one will retaliate against Rowley. She said
she was "pleasantly surprised" by the way Mueller handled the furor over her
Meanwhile, members of the joint House-Senate Intelligence Committee held
a third day of closed-door briefings. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said the
first week of the inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks amounted to a "Terrorism
Lawmakers denied that they have been engaging in behind-the-scenes
partisan bickering. "There is an intense interest in this being conducted in a
bipartisan way" Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said. "People expect Congress to
act like grownups."
May 24, 2002
FBI Flaws Alleged by Field Staff
Moussaoui Probe Lapses Blamed on Headquarters
By Dan Eggen and Bill Miller, The Washington Post
Minneapolis FBI agents investigating terror suspect Zacarias Moussaoui last
August were severely hampered by officials at FBI headquarters, who
resisted seeking search warrants and admonished agents for seeking help
from the CIA, according to a letter from the general counsel for the FBI's
Minneapolis field office.
Coleen Rowley also wrote in a letter Tuesday to FBI Director Robert S.
Mueller III that evidence gathered in the Moussaoui case, combined with a
July 10 FBI warning that al Qaeda operatives might be taking flight training
in Arizona, should have prompted stronger suspicion at FBI headquarters
that a terror attack was planned, according to officials familiar with
"There was a great deal of frustration expressed on the part of the
Minneapolis office toward what they viewed as a less than aggressive
attitude from headquarters," said one official. "The bottom line is that
headquarters was the problem."
The sharply worded letter from Rowley stands in stark contrast to
statements by Mueller and other FBI officials, who have insisted that the
bureau did all it could to determine whether Moussaoui was part of a
terrorist plot. It is also the clearest sign of dissent within the FBI over
whether the bureau mishandled clues to the Sept. 11 attacks last summer, an
issue that has mushroomed this month amid increasingly fierce questioning
Mueller released a statement last night saying that he has referred Rowley's
complaints to the Justice Department's inspector general for investigation.
"While I cannot comment on the specifics of the letter, I am convinced that
a different approach is required," Mueller said. "New strategies, new
analytical capacities and a different culture makes us an agency that is
changing post-9/11. There is no room after the attacks for the types of
problems and attitudes that could inhibit our efforts."
In her classified 13-page letter, which includes detailed footnotes, Rowley
said Minneapolis investigators had significant evidence of Moussaoui's
possible ties to terrorists, including corroboration from a foreign source
that Moussaoui posed a major threat, sources said.
But agent Dave Rapp and his colleagues in Minnesota faced resistance from
headquarters staff that Rowley considered unnecessary and
counterproductive, according to officials who have seen the letter.
FBI attorneys in Washington determined there was not enough evidence to
ask a judge for warrants to search Moussaoui's computer under routine
criminal procedures or a special law aimed at terrorists. Officials have said
there was no evidence of a crime and no solid connections between Moussaoui
and any designated terrorist group.
Moussaoui, who was detained Aug. 16 after arousing suspicions at a
Minnesota flight school, has been charged as a conspirator in the Sept. 11
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Mueller, who took over as FBI director on Sept. 4, was questioned about the
letter during an appearance Wednesday before the Senate Intelligence
Committee, sources said. One official said Mueller "was very forthright in
saying the course of action should have been more aggressive."
Rowley, who officials said has worked for the FBI for more than 20 years,
declined to comment yesterday. "Our office has been very diligent in not
leaking anything," Rowley said. "I'm going to have to stick with that in this
In Berlin yesterday, President Bush said he opposed having an independent
commission investigate intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks. . . .
More than a month before Moussaoui was arrested on immigration
charges, Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams wrote a memo July 10 to
FBI headquarters outlining his investigation of Islamic radicals enrolled
at a Prescott, Ariz., aviation school. He cited bin Laden and raised the
possibility that the al Qaeda terror network was using U.S. flight
schools as a training ground.
Williams's suggestion that the FBI canvass U.S. flight schools was
rejected within weeks by FBI counter-terror division mid-level
managers, who decided they lacked the manpower to pursue it. The
memo was not shared with agents who later investigated Moussaoui, and
it was never given to any other intelligence agency.
Williams told lawmakers in closed-door briefings this week, however, that he
did not expect his request to be acted on immediately and did not believe his
memo could have thwarted the Sept. 11 attacks. None of the men named in
the document, including several associated with a militant London group that
has praised bin Laden, has been connected to the deadly hijackings.
Rowley's correspondence, by contrast, underscores the depth of frustration
within the Minneapolis field office over the way the Moussaoui case was
"It really paints a very grim and troubling picture about the institution
of the FBI at the end of August last year and how many obstacles the
Minnesota office ran into," said one official familiar with the letter's
contents. "Clearly she feels this was handled very poorly."
At one point, according to accounts of Rowley's letter, agents in Minnesota
went to the CIA for help, only to be admonished by headquarters.
The FBI first notified the CIA about Moussaoui soon after arresting him, a
U.S. government official said. The CIA found nothing in an initial check of
Moussaoui's name, but over the next couple of weeks, French intelligence
interviewed Moussaoui's brother and the parents of a man who blamed
Moussaoui for radicalizing their son, according to U.S. sources, and turned
over the information.
In late August, CIA officials learned from "FBI agents in the field" that
they hoped to obtain a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, which would have allowed the government to search Moussaoui's laptop
computer without notifying him, one government official said. He could not
confirm that this was the contact that brought the admonishment.
The hard drive of Moussaoui's computer, which was finally searched several
hours after the Sept. 11 attacks, was found to include detailed information
on crop-dusting and on the type of jetliner hijacked.
The computer also included the names of Moussaoui associates in Singapore
and elsewhere that could have opened new paths for investigators, two
In testimony earlier this month before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Mueller acknowledged that the FBI should have responded more aggressively
to the Phoenix memorandum, but he argued that the FBI did all it could in
- Staff writer Dana Milbank in Berlin contributed to this report. © 2002 The
Washington Post Company
November 25, 2002
FBI Whistleblower Harassed?
Not long after the Sep. 11 attacks, FBI director Robert Mueller issued a
memorandum to all FBI employees, urging them to report wrongdoing,
misconduct or any other behavior within the FBI that could hamper the
bureau’s efforts to battle terrorism.
He offered his personal assurance that retaliation against any FBI
whistleblower would not be tolerated. But in the case of one FBI agent who
appeared on 60 Minutes three weeks ago, Mueller’s orders seem to have
been ignored, Ed Bradley reports.
Special agent John Roberts says he was threatened, intimidated and
humiliated for exposing what he said has become a pattern of misconduct
at the highest levels of the FBI and that has gone unpunished.
Here’s what he said on 60 Minutes that got him into hot water: “I don’t know
of another person in the FBI who has done the internal investigations that I
have and has seen what I have, and knows what has occurred and what has
been glossed over and what has, frankly, just disappeared, just vaporized and
no one disciplined for it.”
What disturbs Roberts is a double standard of discipline at the bureau, in
which, he says, senior officials are rarely punished and often promoted, while
lower level employees end up taking the blame. Roberts is a chief of the
bureau’s Internal Affairs department and for the past 10 years has
investigated and documented hundreds of cases of wrongdoing by FBI
employees. And as he told 60 Minutes several weeks ago about misconduct in
the FBI’s translation department, he doubts that double standard will ever
“I think the double standard of discipline will continue,” Roberts said. “No
matter who comes in, no matter who tries to change, you-- you have a certain
- certain group that - that will continue to protect itself. That's just how it
is,I would say, no matter what happens.”
Roberts said he had found cases since 9/11 in which people were involved in
misconduct and were not reprimanded. Instead, they were promoted.
“You would think that after 9/11, that's a big slap on the face. Hello! This is
a wake-up call here,” Bradley said.
“Depends on who you are. If you're in a senior executive level, [it] may not
hurt you. You'll be promoted,” Roberts said.
What happened to Roberts after that interview aired may be the beginning
of the end of his 20 years at the FBI. Roberts says he was called in to a
meeting in the office of his boss - assistant FBI director Robert Jordan -
and was read the riot act for what he had said on 60 Minutes - even though
the FBI had given Roberts written approval to be interviewed about his
criticism of the FBI.
According to investigators familiar with that meeting, assistant director
Jordan told Roberts : "You dissed me and the director." Jordan later went on
to suggest that Roberts might be transferred or fired.
The way that Roberts was treated got the attention of Democratic Sen.
Patrick Leahy and Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. They sit on the
Judiciary Committee, which has oversight of the FBI. Earlier this year,
Mueller testified before that committee that retaliation against FBI
employees who report wrongdoing would not happen on his watch.
Now, Grassley is trying to hold the FBI director to his word.
Ed Bradley: When you look at what's happened to John Roberts after he
criticized the organization what do you make of the pledges by director
Sen. Grassley: It seems to me that director Mueller has acknowledged the
importance of whistleblowing. And he’s got to step in then and if he doesn’t
then, I think he's gone back on his word to the Congress of the United
States that whistle blowers need to be protected. Because, for sure,
Roberts has not been protected. No - you don't put domesticated animals
through what Mr. Roberts went through.
Grassley and Leahy are leading a bi-partisan congressional investigation into
the FBI’s treatment of Roberts.
“In effect ,they sought to end his career,” says Leahy. “And keep in mind,
this is not - we're not talking about some rookie FBI agent. We're talking
about a person whose life was the FBI, who was the epitome of what you
want in law enforcement. And to be treated like this - it seemed to me that
they're sending a signal throughout the FBI, you dare question something,
you're going to get clobbered.”
Roberts, who spoke freely a few weeks ago, would not speak to Bradley this
week because his lawyer, Steve Kohn, says he is too afraid.
“As John would say, his legs have been cut off. His authority as a supervisor
has been taken away,” Kohn said.
Kohn says Roberts was humiliated by assistant director Jordan in front of
some 40 people, including Roberts’ wife, Brenda, who works in the same
department. According to some who were present, Jordan read sarcastically
from a transcript of the 60 Minutes report, and said that John Roberts had
betrayed everyone at the FBI.
Says Kohn: “And the assistant director got up there and said, 'We are a
family and we have to understand that if we say harmful things to the family
we're all hurt.' and that was the message to everybody. It was that John
Roberts violated the trust of the family.”
“The FBI is not family. The FBI is a government agency. The agents are
employees. You know, the Mafia used to talk about being family. The FBI's
not Mafia, at least they're not supposed to be. But you get the impression
that that sort of peer pressure is what you have to be, and you don't mess
with the family,” says Grassley.
All of this was particularly hard on Roberts’ wife who broke down and
required medical assistance after Jordan addressed the staff.
Says Kohn: “Her husband was ridiculed in front of every co-employee, all the
subordinates, all the support staff and she is totally traumatized. Some of
the co-workers won't look at her any more. They won't return greetings.
Essentially she - they've - been vilified and she feels it.
“Just think of how macho it is for a guy like Jordan to stand up before a
group and say those things? You know, it might- you might need that sort of
macho when you're going after bank robbers and terrorists and bin Laden,
but you don't have to do that to the spouse of a very patriotic FBI agent,”
Earlier this week, Grassley summoned Jordan to his office demanding an
explanation. He says he never got one.
“They would not answer my questions,” Grassley said. “They would not answer
the questions I was told by counsel for Mr. Jordan because he was very
nervous because 60 Minutes was sitting outside of my office, I made very
clear that if 60 Minutes was a problem that I would not speak to 60 Minutes
because I was here to get basic information.”
“My suspicion is that he didn't want to talk to me in the first place. Jordan
ducked out a side door and headed down the street,” says Grassley.
Jordan also declined to talk to Ed Bradley. He suggested that Bradley
contact the press office.
60 Minutes went to the FBI’s press office and was told Robert Jordan would
not be available for an interview. It also was told that Director Robert
Mueller, too, was unavailable. The bureau did send a written statement
saying, "The FBI is committed to fairness in the workplace and does not
tolerate retaliation of any kind." it went on to say, "We have asked the
department of justice Inspector General to expeditiously investigate this
matter, and welcome his findings. If, at that time any action is appropriate,
we will not hesitate to take it."
This was not the first time that John Roberts had gotten into trouble for
criticizing the FBI. He says three years ago he was called on the carpet
because of a high-profile investigation he conducted into the FBI’s handling
of the 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, where the wife of white
supremacist Randy Weaver was killed by an FBI sniper as she stood inside
Roberts concluded that six senior FBI officials had lied or committed
misconduct in their handling of the case. Despite his findings, none of them
were disciplined. The only people punished were subordinate bureau
employees. Roberts testified about that last year at a congressional hearing.
He testified that: “What occurred during the Ruby Ridge investigation
should not be viewed as an isolated incident. This should be alarming to all of
us, because not only is it fundamentally unfair, but more important because,
if the rank and file of any law enforcement organization believe their
executive management condones or approves of misconduct, that is a
precursor for corruption.”
John Roberts told 60 Minutes a few weeks ago that because he exposed
misconduct in the executive ranks of the FBI at Ruby Ridge and other
incidents, he’s been badgered by the very people he was assigned to
“I received a call from one of those senior executives who, in fact, asked me,
‘Do you realize,’ meaning me, John Roberts, do I realize what I’m doing to the
senior executive ranks of the FBI? I was shocked. And my response was ‘I’m
not doing anything. I'm merely conducting an investigation of those who have
done something wrong.’”
Because of that, he says, his career is at a dead end. He says he has been
passed over for transfer or promotion 14 times.
“I’ve been denied that. And the persons making those decisions are the
individuals against whom I alleged and investigated misconduct,” Roberts
So what kind of message is being sent to officials like him at the FBI?
“Where are your loyalties? If they’re to the person that can advance your
career then you will be loyal if you want to move on. If you want to take a
stand and say, ‘Hey, enough’s enough, this is wrong. We can’t continue to
operate this way’ then they’re doomed,” Roberts says.
As for the senior FBI officials whom Roberts found had committed
misconduct at Ruby Ridge, all of them were promoted and - in some cases
- given bonuses. One of them is Van Harp. Even though Roberts said Harp
altered a report to cover up serious wrongdoing, Harp was promoted and
awarded a bonus of $22,000. Harp now runs the FBI’s Washington field
office and is heading the anthrax investigation.
The FBI itself says Harp did nothing wrong at Ruby Ridge, but last week, the
Inspector General of the Justice Department released a report that
endorsed John Roberts’ findings about the FBI’s handling of Ruby Ridge and
his criticism of Harp. The report said the FBI’s handling of the incident was
rife with misconduct, obstruction, and was, at best, grossly deficient and, at
worst, intentionally slanted to protect the FBI and senior FBI officials. The
report concludes that the "FBI suffered and still suffers from a strong
perception that a double standard exists within the FBI.”
“John Roberts has been vindicated, but then you have to ask, of course, the
obvious question: If he was vindicated, why all this retaliation against him,
against his wife, why this effort to hold him up to ridicule?” asks Leahy.
“This is what it comes down to, this effort to send a signal, not just here in
Washington, but in California and Texas, Illinois, everywhere else where the
FBI are, that send a signal, don't blow the whistle. Don't be a
Coleen Rowley's Memo to
FBI Director Robert Mueller
An edited version of the agent's 13-page letterMay 21, 2002
FBI Director Robert Mueller
FBI Headquarters Washington, D.C.
Dear Director Mueller:
I feel at this point that I have to put my concerns in writing concerning the
important topic of the FBI's response to evidence of terrorist activity in
the United States prior to September 11th. The issues are fundamentally
ones of INTEGRITY and go to the heart of the FBI's law enforcement
mission and mandate. Moreover, at this critical juncture in fashioning future
policy to promote the most effective handling of ongoing and future threats
to United States citizens' security, it is of absolute importance that an
unbiased, completely accurate picture emerge of the FBI's current
investigative and management strengths and failures.
To get to the point, I have deep concerns that a delicate and subtle
shading/skewing of facts by you and others at the highest levels of FBI
management has occurred and is occurring. The term "cover up" would be too
strong a characterization which is why I am attempting to carefully (and
perhaps over laboriously) choose my words here. I base my concerns on my
relatively small, peripheral but unique role in the Moussaoui investigation in
the Minneapolis Division prior to, during and after September 11th and my
analysis of the comments I have heard both inside the FBI (originating, I
believe, from you and other high levels of management) as well as your
Congressional testimony and public comments.
I feel that certain facts, including the following, have, up to now, been
omitted, downplayed, glossed over and/or mis-characterized in an effort to
avoid or minimize personal and/or institutional embarrassment on the
part of the FBI and/or perhaps even for improper political reasons:
1) The Minneapolis agents who responded to the call about Moussaoui's flight
training identified him as a terrorist threat from a very early point. The
decision to take him into custody on August 15, 2001, on the INS "overstay"
charge was a deliberate one to counter that threat and was based on the
agents' reasonable suspicions. While it can be said that Moussaoui's overstay
status was fortuitous, because it allowed for him to be taken into immediate
custody and prevented him receiving any more flight training, it was certainly
not something the INS coincidentally undertook of their own volition. I base
this on the conversation I had when the agents called me at home late on the
evening Moussaoui was taken into custody to confer and ask for legal advice
about their next course of action. The INS agent was assigned to the FBI's
Joint Terrorism Task Force and was therefore working in tandem with FBI
2) As the Minneapolis agents' reasonable suspicions quickly ripened into
probable cause, which, at the latest, occurred within days of Moussaoui's
arrest when the French Intelligence Service confirmed his affiliations with
radical fundamentalist Islamic groups and activities connected to Osama Bin
Laden, they became desperate to search the computer lap top that had been
taken from Moussaoui as well as conduct a more thorough search of his
personal effects. The agents in particular believed that Moussaoui signaled
he had something to hide in the way he refused to allow them to search his
3) The Minneapolis agents' initial thought was to obtain a criminal search
warrant, but in order to do so, they needed to get FBI Headquarters'
(FBIHQ's) approval in order to ask for DOJ OIPR's approval to contact the
United States Attorney's Office in Minnesota. Prior to and even after
receipt of information provided by the French, FBIHQ personnel disputed
with the Minneapolis agents the existence of probable cause to believe that
a criminal violation had occurred/was occurring. As such, FBIHQ personnel
refused to contact OIPR to attempt to get the authority. While reasonable
minds may differ as to whether probable cause existed prior to receipt of
the French intelligence information, it was certainly established after that
point and became even greater with successive, more detailed information
from the French and other intelligence sources. The two possible criminal
violations initially identified by Minneapolis Agents were violations of Title
18 United States Code Section 2332b (Acts of terrorism transcending
national boundaries, which, notably, includes "creating a substantial risk of
serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any
structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United
States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure,
conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States")
and Section 32 (Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities). It is
important to note that the actual search warrant obtained on September
11th was based on probable cause of a violation of Section 32.1. Notably
also, the actual search warrant obtained on September 11th did not include
the French intelligence information. Therefore, the only main difference
between the information being submitted to FBIHQ from an early date
which HQ personnel continued to deem insufficient and the actual criminal
search warrant which a federal district judge signed and approved on
September 11th, was the fact that, by the time the actual warrant was
obtained, suspected terrorists were known to have highjacked planes which
they then deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon. To say then, as has been iterated numerous times, that probable
cause did not exist until after the disasterous event occurred, is really to
acknowledge that the missing piece of probable cause was only the FBI's
(FBIHQ's) failure to appreciate that such an event could occur. The
probable cause did not otherwise improve or change. When we went to the
United States Attorney's Office that morning of September 11th, in the
first hour after the attack, we used a disk containing the same information
that had already been provided to FBIHQ; then we quickly added Paragraph
19 which was the little we knew from news reports of the actual attacks that
morning. The problem with chalking this all up to the "20-20 hindsight is
perfect" problem, (which I, as all attorneys who have been involved in deadly
force training or the defense of various lawsuits are fully appreciative of), is
that this is not a case of everyone in the FBI failing to appreciate the
potential consequences. It is obvious, from my firsthand knowledge of the
events and the detailed documentation that exists, 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 and his possible co-conspirators even prior to September 11th.
Even without knowledge of the Phoenix communication (and any number of
other additional intelligence communications that FBIHQ personnel were
privy to in their central coordination roles), the Minneapolis agents
appreciated the risk. So I think it's very hard for the FBI to offer the "20-20 hindsight" justification for its failure to act! Also intertwined with my
reluctance in this case to accept the "20-20 hindsight" rationale is first-hand knowledge that I have of statements made on September 11th, after
the first attacks on the World Trade Center had already occurred, made
telephonically by the FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) who was the one
most involved in the Moussaoui matter and who, up to that point, seemed to
have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI
agents' efforts (see number 5). Even after the attacks had begun, the SSA
in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer,
characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with
Misseapolis' prior suspicions about Moussaoui.
4) In one of my peripheral roles on the Moussaoui matter, I answered an e-mail message on August 22, 2001, from an attorney at the National Security
Law Unit (NSLU). Of course, with (ever important!) 20-20 hindsight, I now
wish I had taken more time and care to compose my response. When asked
by NSLU for my "assessment of (our) chances of getting a criminal warrant
to search Moussaoui's computer", I answered, "Although I think there's a
decent chance of being able to get a judge to sign a criminal search warrant,
our USAO seems to have an even higher standard much of the time, so
rather than risk it, I advised that they should try the other route." Leaked
news accounts which said the Minneapolis Legal Counsel (referring to me)
concurred with the FBIHQ that probable cause was lacking to search
Moussaoui's computer are in error. (or possibly the leak was deliberately
skewed in this fashion?) What I meant by this pithy e-mail response, was
that although I thought probable cause existed ("probable cause" meaning
that the proposition has to be more likely than not, or if quantified, a 51%
likelihood), I thought our United States Attorney's Office, (for a lot of
reasons including just to play it safe) in regularly requiring much more than
probable cause before approving affidavits, (maybe, if quantified, 75%-80%
probability and sometimes even higher), and depending on the actual AUSA
who would be assigned, might turn us down. As a tactical choice, I therefore
thought it would be better to pursue the "other route" (the FISA search
warrant) first, the reason being that there is a common perception, which
for lack of a better term, I'll call the "smell test" which has arisen that if
the FBI can't do something through straight-up criminal methods, it will then
resort to using less-demanding intelligence methods. Of course this isn't
true, but I think the perception still exists. So, by this line of reasoning, I
was afraid that if we first attempted to go criminal and failed to convince an
AUSA, we wouldn't pass the "smell test" in subsequently seeking a FISA. I
thought our best chances therefore lay in first seeking the FISA. Both of
the factors that influenced my thinking are areas arguably in need of
improvement: requiring an excessively high standard of probable cause in
terrorism cases and getting rid of the "smell test" perception. It could even
be argued that FBI agents, especially in terrorism cases where time is of the
essence, should be allowed to go directly to federal judges to have their
probable cause reviewed for arrests or searches without having to gain the
5) The fact is that key FBIHQ personnel whose job it was to assist and
coordinate with field division agents on terrorism investigations and the
obtaining and use of FISA searches (and who theoretically were privy to
many more sources of intelligence information than field division agents),
continued to, almost inexplicably, throw up roadblocks and undermine
Minneapolis' by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant,
long after the French intelligence service provided its information and
probable cause became clear. HQ personnel brought up almost ridiculous
questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause. In all
of their conversations and correspondence, HQ personnel never disclosed to
the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had, only approximately
three weeks earlier, warned of Al Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking
flight training for terrorist purposes!
Nor did FBIHQ personnel do much to disseminate the information about
Moussaoui to other appropriate intelligence/law enforcement authorities.
When, in a desperate 11th hour measure to bypass the FBIHQ roadblock, the
Minneapolis Division undertook to directly notify the CIA's Counter
Terrorist Center (CTC), FBIHQ personnel actually chastised the Minneapolis
agents for making the direct notification without their approval!
6 ) Eventually on August 28, 2001, after a series of e-mails between
Minneapolis and FBIHQ, which suggest that the FBIHQ SSA deliberately
further undercut the FISA effort by not adding the further intelligence
information which he had promised to add that supported Moussaoui's
foreign power connection and making several changes in the wording of the
information that had been provided by the Minneapolis Agent, the
Minneapolis agents were notified that the NSLU Unit Chief did not think
there was sufficient evidence of Moussaoui's connection to a foreign power.
Minneapolis personnel are, to this date, unaware of the specifics of the
verbal presentations by the FBIHQ SSA to NSLU or whether anyone in
NSLU ever was afforded the opportunity to actually read for him/herself all
of the information on Moussaoui that had been gathered by the Minneapolis
Division and the French intelligence service. Obviously verbal presentations
are far more susceptible to mis-characterization and error. The e-mail
communications between Minneapolis and FBIHQ, however, speak for
themselves and there are far better witnesses than me who can provide
their first hand knowledge of these events characterized in one Minneapolis
agent's e-mail as FBIHQ is "setting this up for failure." My only comment is
that the process of allowing the FBI supervisors to make changes in
affidavits is itself fundamentally wrong, just as, in the follow-up to FBI
Laboratory Whistleblower Frederic Whitehurst's allegations, this process
was revealed to be wrong in the context of writing up laboratory results.
With the Whitehurst allegations, this process of allowing supervisors to re-write portions of laboratory reports, was found to provide opportunities for
over-zealous supervisors to skew the results in favor of the prosecution. In
the Moussaoui case, it was the opposite -- the process allowed the
Headquarters Supervisor to downplay the significance of the information
thus far collected in order to get out of the work of having to see the FISA
application through or possibly to avoid taking what he may have perceived as
an unnecessary career risk. I understand that the failures of the FBIHQ
personnel involved in the Moussaoui matter are also being officially excused
because they were too busy with other investigations, the Cole bombing and
other important terrorism matters, but the Supervisor's taking of the time
to read each word of the information submitted by Minneapolis and then
substitute his own choice of wording belies to some extent the notion that
he was too busy. As an FBI division legal advisor for 12 years (and an FBI
agent for over 21 years), I can state that an affidavit is better and will tend
to be more accurate when the affiant has first hand information of all the
information he/she must attest to. Of necessity, agents must continually
rely upon information from confidential sources, third parties and other law
enforcement officers in drafting affidavits, but the repeating of
information from others greatly adds to the opportunities for factual
discrepancies and errors to arise. To the extent that we can minimize the
opportunity for this type of error to arise by simply not allowing unnecessary
re-writes by supervisory staff, it ought to be done. (I'm not talking, of
course, about mere grammatical corrections, but changes of some substance
as apparently occurred with the Moussaoui information which had to be, for
lack of a better term, "filtered" through FBIHQ before any action, whether
to seek a criminal or a FISA warrant, could be taken.) Even after September
11th, the fear was great on the part of Minneapolis Division personnel that
the same FBIHQ personnel would continue their "filtering" with respect to
the Moussaoui investigation, and now with the added incentive of preventing
their prior mistakes from coming to light. For this reason, for weeks,
Minneapolis prefaced all outgoing communications (ECs) in the PENTTBOM
investigation with a summary of the information about Moussaoui. We just
wanted to make sure the information got to the proper prosecutive
authorities and was not further suppressed! This fear was probably
irrational but was nonetheless understandable in light of the Minneapolis
agents' prior experiences and frustrations involving FBIHQ. (The redundant
preface information regarding Moussaoui on otherwise unrelative
PENTTBOM communications has ended up adding to criminal discovery issues,
but this is the reason it was done.)
7) Although the last thing the FBI or the country needs now is a witch hunt,
I do find it odd that (to my knowledge) no inquiry whatsoever was launched
of the relevant FBIHQ personnel's actions a long time ago. Despite FBI
leaders' full knowledge of all the items mentioned herein (and probably more
that I'm unaware of), the SSA, his unit chief, and other involved HQ
personnel were allowed to stay in their positions and, what's worse, occupy
critical positions in the FBI's SIOC Command Center post September 11th.
(The SSA in question actually received a promotion some months afterward!)
It's true we all make mistakes and I'm not suggesting that HQ personnel in
question ought to be burned at the stake, but, we all need to be held
accountable for serious mistakes. I'm relatively certain that if it appeared
that a lowly field office agent had committed such errors of judgment, the
FBI's OPR would have been notified to investigate and the agent would have,
at the least, been quickly reassigned. I'm afraid the FBI's failure to submit
this matter to OPR (and to the IOB) gives further impetus to the notion
(raised previously by many in the FBI) of a double standard which results in
those of lower rank being investigated more aggressively and dealt with more
harshly for misconduct while the misconduct of those at the top is often
overlooked or results in minor disciplinary action. From all appearances, this
double standard may also apply between those at FBIHQ and those in the
8) The last official "fact" that I take issue with is not really a fact, but an
opinion, and a completely unsupported opinion at that. In the day or two
following September 11th, you, Director Mueller, made the statement to the
effect that if the FBI had only had any advance warning of the attacks, we
(meaning the FBI), may have been able to take some action to prevent the
tragedy. Fearing that this statement could easily come back to haunt the FBI
upon revelation of the information that had been developed pre-September
11th about Moussaoui, I and others in the Minneapolis Office, immediately
sought to reach your office through an assortment of higher level FBIHQ
contacts, in order to quickly make you aware of the background of the
Moussaoui investigation and forewarn you so that your public statements
could be accordingly modified. When such statements from you and other
FBI officials continued, we thought that somehow you had not received the
message and we made further efforts. Finally when similar comments were
made weeks later, in Assistant Director Caruso's congressional testimony in
response to the first public leaks about Moussaoui we faced the sad
realization that the remarks indicated someone, possibly with your approval,
had decided to circle the wagons at FBIHQ in an apparent effort to protect
the FBI from embarrassment and the relevant FBI officials from scrutiny.
Everything I have seen and heard about the FBI's official stance and the
FBI's internal preparations in anticipation of further congressional inquiry,
had, unfortunately, confirmed my worst suspicions in this regard. After the
details began to emerge concerning the pre-September 11th investigation of
Moussaoui, and subsequently with the recent release of the information
about the Phoenix EC, your statement has changed. The official statement is
now to the effect that even if the FBI had followed up on the Phoenix lead
to conduct checks of flight schools and the Minneapolis request to search
Moussaoui's personal effects and laptop, nothing would have changed and
such actions certainly could not have prevented the terrorist attacks and
resulting loss of life. With all due respect, this statement is as bad as the
first! It is also quite at odds with the earlier statement (which I'm surprised
has not already been pointed out by those in the media!) I don't know how
you or anyone at FBI Headquarters, no matter how much genius or prescience
you may possess, could so blithely make this affirmation without anything to
back the opinion up than your stature as FBI Director. The truth is, as with
most predictions into the future, no one will ever know what impact, if any,
the FBI's following up on those requests, would have had. Although I agree
that it's very doubtful that the full scope of the tragedy could have been
prevented, it's at least possible we could have gotten lucky and uncovered
one or two more of the terrorists in flight training prior to September 11th,
just as Moussaoui was discovered, after making contact with his flight
instructors. It is certainly not beyond the realm of imagination to
hypothesize that Moussaoui's fortuitous arrest alone, even if he merely was
the 20th hijacker, allowed the hero passengers of Flight 93 to overcome
their terrorist hijackers and thus spare more lives on the ground. And even
greater casualties, possibly of our Nation's highest government officials,
may have been prevented if Al Qaeda intended for Moussaoui to pilot an
entirely different aircraft. There is, therefore at least some chance that
discovery of other terrorist pilots prior to September 11th may have limited
the September 11th attacks and resulting loss of life. Although your
conclusion otherwise has to be very reassuring for some in the FBI to hear
being repeated so often (as if saying it's so may make it so), I think your
statements demonstrate a rush to judgment to protect the FBI at all costs.
I think the only fair response to this type of question would be that no one
can pretend to know one way or another.
Mr. Director, I hope my observations can be taken in a constructive vein.
They are from the heart and intended to be completely apolitical. Hopefully,
with our nation's security on the line, you and our nation's other elected and
appointed officials can rise above the petty politics that often plague other
discussions and do the right thing. You do have some good ideas for change in
the FBI but I think you have also not been completely honest about some of
the true reasons for the FBI's pre-September 11th failures. Until we come
clean and deal with the root causes, the Department of Justice will continue
to experience problems fighting terrorism and fighting crime in general.
I have used the "we" term repeatedly herein to indicate facts about others
in the Minneapolis Office at critical times, but none of the opinions
expressed herin can be attributed to anyone but myself. I know that those
who know me would probably describe me as, by nature, overly opinionated
and sometimes not as discreet as I should be. Certainly some of the above
remarks may be interpreted as falling into that category, but I really do not
intend anything as a personal criticism of you or anyone else in the FBI, to
include the FBIHQ personnel who I believe were remiss and mishandled their
duties with regard to the Moussaoui investigation. Truly my only purpose is
to try to provide the facts within my purview so that an accurate assessment
can be obtained and we can learn from our mistakes. I have pointed out a few
of the things that I think should be looked at but there are many, many
more. An honest acknowledgment of the FBI's mistakes in this and other
cases should not lead to increasing the Headquarters bureaucracy and
approval levels of investigative actions as the answer. Most often, field
office agents and field office management on the scene will be better suited
to the timely and effective solution of crimes and, in some lucky instances,
to the effective prevention of crimes, including terrorism incidents. The
relatively quick solving of the recent mailbox pipe-bombing incidents which
resulted in no serious injuries to anyone are a good example of effective
field office work (actually several field offices working together) and there
are hundreds of other examples. Although FBIHQ personnel have, no doubt,
been of immeasurable assistance to the field over the years, I'm hard
pressed to think of any case which has been solved by FBIHQ personnel and
I can name several that have been screwed up! Decision-making is inherently
more effective and timely when decentralized instead of concentrated.
Your plans for an FBI Headquarters' "Super Squad" simply fly in the face of
an honest appraisal of the FBI's pre-September 11th failures. The Phoenix,
Minneapolis and Paris Legal Attache Offices reacted remarkably exhibiting
keen perception and prioritization skills regarding the terrorist threats they
uncovered or were made aware of pre-September 11th. The same cannot be
said for the FBI Headquarters' bureaucracy and you want to expand that?!
Should we put the counterterrorism unit chief and SSA who previously
handled the Moussaoui matter in charge of the new "Super Squad"?! You are
also apparently disregarding the fact the Joint Terrorism Task Forces
(JTTFs), operating out of field divisions for years, (the first and chief one
being New York City's JTTF), have successfully handled numerous terrorism
investigations and, in some instances, successfully prevented acts of
terrorism. There's no denying the need for more and better intelligence and
intelligence management, but you should think carefully about how much gate
keeping power should be entrusted with any HQ entity. If we are indeed in a
"war", shouldn't the Generals be on the battlefield instead of sitting in a
spot removed from the action while still attempting to call the shots?
I have been an FBI agent for over 21 years and, for what it's worth, have
never received any form of disciplinary action throughout my career. From
the 5th grade, when I first wrote the FBI and received the "100 Facts about
the FBI" pamphlet, this job has been my dream. I feel that my career in the
FBI has been somewhat exemplary, having entered on duty at a time when
there was only a small percentage of female Special Agents. I have also been
lucky to have had four children during my time in the FBI and am the sole
breadwinner of a family of six.
Due to the frankness with which I have expressed myself and my deep
feelings on these issues, (which is only because I feel I have a somewhat
unique, inside perspective of the Moussaoui matter, the gravity of the events
of September 11th and the current seriousness of the FBI's and United
States' ongoing efforts in the "war against terrorism"), I hope my continued
employment with the FBI is not somehow placed in jeopardy. I have never
written to an FBI Director in my life before on any topic. Although I would
hope it is not necessary, I would therefore wish to take advantage of the
federal "Whistleblower Protection" provisions by so characterizing my
Coleen M. Rowley
Special Agent and Minneapolis Chief Division Counsel
May 11, 2001
Excerpts from BBC News Article:
Timeline: Oklahoma bombing
The 1995 Oklahoma bombing killed 168 people, including 19 children, and
injured more than 500 others, making it the most deadly peacetime attack on
Timothy McVeigh, a 33-year-old Gulf War veteran, was convicted of
carrying out the bombing and sentenced to death by lethal injection.
BBC News Online charts the events surrounding the bombing.
23 April: Timothy McVeigh born, Pendleton, New York.
McVeigh enlists in the US Army.
McVeigh sees active service as a gunner in the Gulf War.
After the war he tries to join Special Forces, but is unfit and fails. He is
later discharged and returns home to live with his father in Pendleton.
August: Federal forces storm the isolated home of white separatist Randy
Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, the target of a guns investigation. His wife
Vicki and their son, Sammy, are killed.
The deaths raise questions about the excessive use of force by federal
March-April: McVeigh visits Waco, Texas, where federal forces have
surrounded a compound which is home to the Branch Davidian sect led by
19 April: Federal troops storm the compound near Waco. The 51-day siege
ends but 82 people are killed in the process.
19 April: At 0902 a van packed with home-made explosives and parked outside
the Alfred P Murrah federal building in downtown Oklahoma city explodes.
Half of the nine-storey building collapses. The cost of the damage is later
estimated at $80m.
Less than 90 minutes later, Timothy McVeigh is stopped by an Oklahoma
traffic policeman for driving without licence plates and detained on firearms
21 April: Just as he is about to be released from custody, McVeigh is
identified and charged with the bombing.
McVeigh's former army colleague, Terry Nichols, surrenders to police in his
home town of Herington, Kansas.
23 May: The ruined building is demolished.
10 August: A Grand Jury indicts McVeigh and Nichols on bombing and
A third man, McVeigh's army friend Michael Fortier, pleads guilty to a
firearms charge as part of a plea bargain.
15 August: McVeigh and Nichols are arraigned separately in the Oklahoma
City federal court.
1 December: Judge Wayne Alley is removed from the case after a federal
judge rules that damage to his chambers could raise doubts about his
4 December: Judge Richard Matsch is put in charge of the case.
20 February: Judge Matsch rules that media coverage in Oklahoma has
"demonised" the defendants and orders that the trial be moved to Denver,
31 March: Jury selection begins.
24 April: Trial begins. Prosecution calls 137 witnesses in 18 days. Defence
calls 25 witnesses in four days.
2 June: McVeigh is convicted on all 11 counts. The jury takes four days to
reach its verdict.
13 June: Jury sentences McVeigh to death by lethal injection.
20 June: Stephen Jones steps down as McVeigh's lead lawyer after a row
with his client.
31 October: Nichols trail begins.
23 December: Nichols is convicted of manslaughter and conspiracy.
7 January: The Nichols jury fails to agree on the death penalty.
January: McVeigh appeals. Lawyers say pre-trial publicity and what they call
"inflammatory" statements from survivors prejudiced the trail.
27 May: Fortier is sentenced to 12 years in jail and fined $200,000 for
failing to warn the authorities about the bombing.
4 June: Calling him an "enemy of the constitution", a federal judge
sentences Nichols to life imprisonment without parole, the maximum possible
6 March: McVeigh's appeal is rejected.
30 March: Nichols is charged with murder in an Oklahoma state court. He
could face the death penalty if convicted.
11 July: McVeigh is moved to the newly-opened death row facility at Terre
Haute federal prison in Indiana.
17 August: McVeigh appeals again, alleging incompetence by his lawyers.
October: Judge Matsch rejects the second appeal.
19 April: President Clinton opens Oklahoma City memorial. It includes 168
chairs bearing the names of the victims; the "survivor tree," an elm tree that
lived through the bombing though badly damaged; a reflecting pool; and
bronze gates that symbolically preserve the moment of the explosion, 0902.
11 January: McVeigh waives his right to appeal and says he wants a date set
for his execution.
29 March: Publication of "American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the
Oklahoma City Bombing," by Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck. The two local
reporters spent 75 hours interviewing McVeigh in prison.
12 April: Attorney General John Ashcroft announces that 250 survivors and
relatives can watch the execution via a secure closed-circuit television link.
19 April: Sixth anniversary of bombing. A federal judge refuses a request
to broadcast McVeigh's execution live on the internet.
11 May: Attorney-General John Ashcroft postpones the execution for one
month after it is revealed that the FBI failed to release thousands of
documents to McVeigh's lawyers.
31 May: Following the FBI admission, McVeigh asks for a stay of execution,
tellling his lawyers he wants to preserve the integrity of America's
6 June: US federal judge, Judge Richard Matsch, rules that the execution
will go ahead saying the newly-released documents did not change the
fact that McVeigh was guilty.
8 June: McVeigh's lawyers announce that he will not exercise his right to
appeal to the US Supreme Court for a further stay of execution.
11 June: McVeigh is executed by lethal injection at Terre Haute, Indiana,
after rejecting any further legal avenues to stop the sentence being carried
See also: http://220.127.116.11/129276/661.html
From Drugging America, by Rodney Stich:
FBI AGENT EXPOSES
A veteran FBI agent and highly-decorated Vietnam veteran provided still
further corroboration to the fact that the CIA has been smuggling drugs for
the past 40 years, that the CIA has been engaging in drug trafficking with
Mafia segments, and that the CIA has been engaging in drug trafficking with
Mafia segments, and that the FBI and other Justice Department divisions
have covered up for these interrelated crimes.
Richard M. Taus had been a Special Agent for the FBI from 1978 to 1988,
during which time he was assigned to organized crime and foreign counter-intelligence operations....
While he was a helicopter unit commander in Vietnam, Taus discovered and
reported to his supervisors widespread drug trafficking by the Central
Intelligence Agency. Taus described how the CIA transported drugs that
were sold to American GI’s in Vietnam and Laos, causing over a third of the
armed forces in Vietnam to become drug addicts.
These GI’s were often too drugged out to either fight or defend themselves.
In addition, in that condition, they often killed their own officers, a practice
known as “fragging.”....
I first made contact with Taus in 1997, and he was hesitant about revealing
government corruption that he discovered while an FBI agent. I explained to
Taus that there was a U.S. Supreme Court decision rendered about 15 years
earlier stating that a federal employee had a greater duty to report criminal
activities by his superiors than a duty to cover up for such crimes because of
any employee secrecy agreement....
Taus said he did all he could to report these criminal activities, but the
coverup was too pervasive. The coverup included senior FBI officials such
as Oliver “Buck” Revell, who had earlier stalled and stopped legitimate FBI
investigations concerning both the Irangate and Iraqgate scandals, similar to
his boss, J. Edgar Hoover, protecting organized crime for many years....
He stated in general terms about discovering evidence of major criminal
activities involving the CIA, the White House, and other government
operations. Over a period of several years, Taus provided me with sufficient
data to write a book sole on his disclosures as a military pilot and then an
While Taus was piloting a helicopter in Vietnam he heard over the aircraft
radio a distress call from the pilot of an Air America C-46 aircraft about to
make a crash landing. Taus proceeded to the crash site and landed, offering
to fly the unharmed pilots to their base of operations. But the crew refused
to leave the aircraft, saying they would wait for Air America people to
arrive. The reason for refusing to leave the aircraft was suggested by the
nature of the cargo: it consisted of heroin, estimated at about 4000 pounds.
(Air America and its predecessor airline, Civil Air Transport, among others,
was one of many CIA airlines. While I was flying captain for Japan Airlines
out of Tokyo, where many of these CIA-associated pilots went for
recreation, I learned from them that the CIA was hauling drugs.)
Upon returning to base, Taus made a written report to his military unit
commander describing the heroin on the Air America aircraft. He also sent a
letter to his New York congressman, reporting the CIA’s drug smuggling
operation. A congressional “investigation” followed, which covered up for the
CIA’s drug smuggling – a congressional coverup that has gone on for the past
Tius returned to the United States from Vietnam and became part of the
New York National Guard, assigned to instructor duties for the U.S. Army
Command and General Staff College courses. While on military duty with the
National Guard, he was sent to Central and South America several times on
special missions, during which he learned more about the global drug
trafficking business and the involvement of it of the CIA, State
Department, and U.S. military....
After leaving the military, Taus joined the FBI as a Special Agent, and
continued his ties to the military as a senior officer in the Army Reserve.
During his FBI investigations, Taus discovered covert CIA operations in the
United States, including looting the savings and loans, and other criminal
Taus explained how the CIA had infiltrated the FBI and discovered the
names of FBI agents and informants, and investigations that could expose
covert and criminal CIA operations. The CIA knowingly gave false
information to FBI agents, seriously jeopardizing FBI missions and
misleading top Justice Department and White House personnel....
Taus was very concerned about the CIA drug smuggling that he observed
over a 20-year period of time while an Army officer and then while an FBI
Special Agent. This concern was increased by his discovery that the CIA
was actively involved in drug trafficking with organized crime figures in the
New York area. And if this wasn’t enough, his concern was further
heightened by FBI supervisors ordering him to shut down his investigation.
Taus and other FBI agents discovered CIA drug trafficking as a result of
their investigations into other organized crime activities, and aided by the
Pennsylvania Crime Commission Report on drug trafficking among pizza
outlets and cheese dealers. The Pennsylvania report described extensive
interstate and international drug-trafficking involving Mafia figures
throughout the United States and Canada....
Taus, while heading an FBI investigative team, discovered CIA involvement
with the American Mafia in drug trafficking during the time when Assistant
U.S. Attorney Louis Freeh was prosecuting the Italian Mafia’s drug
trafficking activities in the Pizza Connection drug cases. Freeh’s prosecution
of these cases propelled him to prominence in the FBI and he eventually
became the director of the bureau.
It was Taus’ belief there was a conflict between the Sicilian Mafia drug
activities and those of the American Mafia, and that the CIA’s connections
were with the American Mafia. He felt the selective crackdown on the
Sicilian Mafia was to eliminate competition to the CIA-backed American
Also, the Pizza Connection drug charges focused on low level Mafia figures
while protecting high-level drug kingpins and their accomplices in
government. Taus explained the obstacles blocking prosecution by well-placed political figures, judges, and others.
He explained how AUSA Freeh blocked the issuance of subpoenas for such
companies as Cremosa and Drexel-Castle, which had CIA connections....
A signed affidavit of Richard M. Taus is reproduced in Rodney Stich’s
book, Drugging America :
Affidavit of Richard M. Taus
I, Richard M. Taus, declare and state: I am a former Special Agent for the
Federal Bureau of Investigation assigned to the New York Office and the Brooklyn-Queens Metropolitan Resident Agency from July 1978 to November 1988. I was
assigned to both the Foreign Counter-Intelligence Division and the Criminal
During this period of time, my investigations into these matters revealed criminal
activities and operations which I reported and documented to my superiors in the
FBI, as follows:
The involvement of official, agents and operatives of the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) with organized crime members and drug-trafficking activities. And
the participation by members of the CIA who engaged in the looting of the Savings
& Loan (Thrift) Industries, financial scams and fraudulent securities transactions.
The involvement of people from the National Security Agency Staff and Council
and the White House in criminal activities associated with funding the acquisition of
military supplies and equipment, arms and ammunition which were referred to as
the Iran-Contra Arms Initiative, known as Irangate, and the Iraqi Scandal, known
The associations between known and suspected members of the Mafia and CIA
agents in conducting drug-trafficking activities and financial frauds.
I was ordered by my supervisors in the FBI to halt these investigations, destroy
my written reports, terminate my informants and make no reference to these
criminal and subversive activities implicating high-ranking government officials,
politicians, Mafia and business leaders who controlled and manipulated government
agencies and operations.
Without any support from my superiors at the FBI New York Field Office, I then
sent a letter describing what I had discovered in my official status as an FBI Special
Agent to the FBI Director, William Sessions, and this was ignored. I proceeded to
write Congressional officials, among them Senators Arlan Spector, Alfonse
D’Amato, John Kerry and Congressmen Norman Lent, Charles Schmur, and many
others who were on both the Senate and House Intelligence Oversight Committees.
None of the above officials or representatives provided any support or assistance in
exposing the CIA-White House corruption and the obstruction of justice tactics by
my FBI superiors.
My sole purpose in preparing this affidavit, to be used by the former FBI Special
Agent-In-Charge of the Los Angeles Field office, SAC Ted Gunderson, is to bring to
justice the criminal and subversive activities that I and other government agents and
operatives have discovered during our official and government related duties.
I declare and affirm under penalty of perjury that these statements are true to the
best of my knowledge and belief. Executed this 13th day of August 1997, in the
County of Clinton, State of New York.
(s) Richard M. Taus
For more on the CIA and drugs, GO TO > > > Songs of the Drug Vultures
From ... and the truth shall set you free, by David Icke:
The Hidden Hand
After a period as the United States representative in China while the
Chinese and Henry Kissinger were supporting Pol Pot in Cambodia, George
H.W. Bush returned home in 1975. He received a telegram from Kissinger
saying that he was being nominated by Ford (Kissinger) to be the Director of
This is a major Elite organisation, as is British Intelligence, which is probably
above the CIA in the Elite pyramid. It was British Intelligence that helped
to set up the CIA after the war. The familiar names step forward again.
A key figure behind the formation of the Office of Strategic Services
(OSS), later the CIA, was General William J. Donovan. He studied law at
Columbia University under Professor Harland F. Stone, who would later
become US Attorney General and appoint Donovan as his assistant. Another
of Stone's protégés was J. Edgar Hoover, who would be head of the FBI,
and one of Donovan's classmates was Franklin D. Roosevelt, the future
In the First World War and between the wars, Donovan accepted a number
of intelligence assignments from the New World Order brigade, including
J.P. Morgan, the Rockefellers, and the Rothschilds, and on one occasion he
spent an evening with Aldolf Hitler.
In 1941 he was appointed head of the new OSS intelligence agency by his
friend from Columbia, Franklin Roosevelt. Donovan was assisted by James
Paul Warburg, the son of Paul Warburg. It was James Warburg who said:
"We shall have a world government whether or not you like it - by conquest
However, it seems Donovan was not actually in charge of the OSS. According
to Eustace Mullins in The World Order, Our Secret Rulers, Winston
Churchill's military secretary, Colonel E.I. Jacob, was told by Major Desmond
Morton Church, the Prime Minister's liaison with British Intelligence, in
"Another most secret fact of which the Prime Minister is aware is that to all
intents and purposes US Security is being run for them at the President's
request by the British. A British officer sits in Washington with Mr. Edgar
Hoover and General Bill Donovan for this purpose. It is of course essential
that this fact should not be known."
The leading British coordinator of the OSS and its policy was William
Stephenson, the head of the Special Intelligence Section of the Secret
Intelligence Service (SIS) and he was given a floor of the Rockefeller
Center rent free. From there he ran a network of British agents in the
United States which, according to Mullins, were involved in the murders of
German sailors in New York, acts designed to entice Hitler to declare war on
Stephenson and Louis Bloomfield, the head of Permindex, also ran Operation
Underworld with the Lansky Syndicate. Mullins suggests that three other
members of the British Chiefs of Staff behind the creation of the OSS
were: Lord Louis Mountbatten (Committee of 300, Bilderberg), a cousin of
the King and related to the Frankfort banking families, Rothschild and
Cassel; Charles Hambro, director of Hambros Bank and the Special
Operations Executive; and Colonel Stewart Menzies, head of the Secret
Intelligence Service. Lord Victor Rothschild was also at the heart of it. . . .
After the war, Donovan was special assistant to the US prosecutor at the
Nuremberg Trials to ensure that British and American involvement with the
Nazis was not revealed. President Truman disbanded the OSS in 1945, but it
was reformed as the CIA in 1948 under the control of Allen W. Dulles, a
major funder of Adolf Hitler.
Appropriately, Dulles, a director of Hitler's bankers, J. Henry Schroder
(Committee of 300), chose them to handle CIA funds. The CIA is an arm of
the tax-exempt foundation syndicates controlled by the
Rockefellers/Rothschilds, like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford
Foundation, and the Carnegie organisation, through which much of the CIA
policy is decided.
But although the CIA is extremely important to the New World Order, the
real power in American intelligence circles is the National Security
Agency (NSA), an organisation that keeps its head down while the CIA does
its dirty work.
So while Bush was head of the CIA and even when he was president, he would
be answerable to higher masters within the Elite....
Bush was not heading an independent CIA, but an element within the so
called 'Inner Fed' of the secret government which consists of the CIA,
NSA, FBI, NASA, and the Federal Reserve.
Much of the funding for this cartel of manipulation comes from its
involvement in the hard drugs trade....
For more on Henry Kissinger, GO TO >>> The Kissinger of Death
# # #
S-h-h-h, for a peek at some other clandestine
birds and their secret nests,
SNEAK ON DOWN!
Tony Coelho - former U.S. Congressman (D) from California; Gore's
presidential campaign manager.
From Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton Whitehouse, by
On the heels of the Aldrich Ames spy case, the Clintons announced a
presidential commission to study "Roles and Capabilities of the
Intelligence Community" and to recommend fundamental changes for the
CIA, the FBI, and other agencies.
The members of the commission would need to know the most secret
activities of the most secret agencies in order to perform their function.
So it was vital that all members of this important commission be of the
highest caliber and have spotless backgrounds.
Departing Speaker of the House Tom Foley appointed former Congressman
Tony Coelho to the commission. He was an odd choice. Coelho had left
Congress under a cloud and had gone to New York and made millions in the
commodities markets. . . .
Tony Coelho was nothing if not an interesting character. He had been in so
much trouble as a congressman that more than one book and many articles
had been written about him. He had been the subject of several, albeit
unsuccessful, federal criminal probes.
Hiring Coelho to serve on the Intelligence commission was taking
the protection of national security to a new low.
The Coelho investigation was received on 7 March 1995. It was to be
completed by 27 March "without fail." To order that we finish the
investigation in what amounted to fifteen working days was an outrage and
impossible-and that's what I advised my supervisor, in writing.... But he still
harangued me with calls to meet the deadline. . . .
Among the allegations against Coelho - some of which he freely confessed -
were the following:
>> Taking daily doses of methaqualone or phenobarbital for medical
>> Prior alcoholism and considerations of suicide.
>> Illegal, unethical, or inappropriate lobbying of the new Clinton
>> Personal conflicts of interest.
>> Resigning from Congress of 15 June 1989 after multiple accusations
of serious wrongdoing, including violations of federal laws.
>> Failing to correctly report income on a federal income tax return.
>> Failing to report a loan of $50,000 in violation of House ethics
>> Issuing, in less than one year, 316 personal checks - for a total of
more than $293,000 - all drawn on a bank account for which there were
>> Accepting a "sweetheart" junk bond deal from Michael Milkin (later
convicted and sentenced by U.S. Federal Judge Kimba Wood).
>> Accepting a $4,000 gift from a savings and loand banker later
indicted and convicted of federal violations.
>> Using inappropriate influence to protect owners of failing savings and
>> Accepting illegal political contributions aboard a 112-foot yacht
owned by a savings and loan businessman who was later indicted and
convicted of fraud.
>> Improperly appointing a friend and large contributor to the finance
chair of the DNC (the friend owned a failing Texas savings and loan).
>> Alleged improper contacts with employees of the Clinton Department
of Agriculture for the purpose of influencing decisions made with respect
to farm chemicals being produced by a leading manufacturer, also a big
contributor to politicians.
This list is by no means complete. These are just some of the public,
media-reported allegations against Coelho, most of which have never been
investigated fully for one reason or another.
Now there was a reason to fully investigate these allegations, but I wasn't
being allowed to. While it was true that Coelho was never charged with any
crime, the Department of Justice Office of Public Integrity only declined to
prosecute him, and anyone in law enforcement and the political arena knows
that declining to prosecute is not the same as declaring someone innocent.
The deeper I dug, the more cynical were the questions I posed to myself.
How much were Coelho's chances for an important position enhanced by the
fact that he was engaged in fundraising for the president's defense against
the sexual harassment lawsuit brought by Paula Jones?
Could Coelho's opportunity to join the commission have anything to do with
the fact that he defended Hillary Clinton's celebrated windfall profits in
What about the public speculation that the Clintons wanted Coelho "cleared"
to work on the commission in order to rehabilitate him so he could run the
president's reelection campaign?
I was not in charge of standards, nor was I in charge of the Coelho
investigation; I was just asking questions, and I was only the lead agent
covering the U.S. House of Representatives.
Ultimately, Coelho got his security clearance from the Clinton
administration and gained access to some of the most sensitive
information our government has.
If you ask me why, I don't know....
For more on Coelho's casino connections, GO TO > > > The Game Birds
# # #
FOR MORE SECRET NESTS
PART I - THE CIA
PART III - THE MOSSAD
For more deep cover conspiracies, GO TO...
A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING KAMEHAMEHA’S COURT
AIR AMERICA: FLYING HIGH WITH THE CIA
AN OCTOPUS NAMED WACKENHUT
APCOA: VULTURES IN THE PARKING LOT
BIRDS ON THE POWER LINES
BIRDS THAT DRINK FROM CESSPOOLS: THE CARLYLE GROUP
THE BLACKSTONE GROUP
THE BUZZARDS IN THE HALLS OF JUSTICE
THE CHUBB GROUP
DIRTY GOLD IN GOLDMAN SACHS
THE DRUG VULTURES
FLYING HIGH OVER HAWAII: THE RON REWALD STORY
HUD: THE HOUSING & URBAN DISASTER
NESTS IN THE PENTAGON
PREDATORS IN PARADISE
SONGS OF THE DRUG VULTURES
THE EAGLE HOODED
MARSH & McLENNAN: THE MARSH BIRDS
THE STEPHEN FRIEDMAN FLOCK
THE STRANGE SAGA OF BCCI
VAMPIRES IN THE CITY
VAMPIRES ON GILLIGAN’S ISLAND
WHO'S GUARDING THE HEN HOUSE ???
WILLIAM SIMON SAYS
FAIR USE NOTICE. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues,
etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If
you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that
go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Last update September 27, 2007 by The Catbird