New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | March 30, 2006

Jeff Taylor pores over the transcripts from the "20th highjacker" trial and finds ample evidence of an impending attack that intelligence agencies ignored.

Comments

|3.30.06 @ 4:10PM|#

Yeah, that really puts the conspiracy theorists in their place.

|3.30.06 @ 4:33PM|#

Instead of clueless Carter-era restrictions on domestic spying or insufficient distrust of civil liberties, Samit cited "obstructionism, criminal negligence and careerism" by top FBI officials as what stopped his investigation.

I don't know how you fix the careerism and incompetence short of firing the whole lot and starting over. If you did actually hold people accountable and replace them, disgruntled FBI agents would have a field day writing op-eds in the time about how the administration is "ignoring the professionals" and blaming them for political reasons. That no doubt would be licked up like mothers milk by the media regardless of how incompetent the person writing it was.

The FBI didn't get like this overnight and I am not sure how you fix it. Government bureaucracies are innately incompetent. It is a miracle that they function as well as they do.

Tim Cavanaugh|3.30.06 @ 4:44PM|#

If you did actually hold people accountable and replace them, disgruntled FBI agents would have a field day writing op-eds in the time about how the administration is "ignoring the professionals" and blaming them for political reasons. That no doubt would be licked up like mothers milk by the media regardless of how incompetent the person writing it was.

So we should keep incompetents in place to prevent the threat of unlicensed op/ed writing?

|3.30.06 @ 4:50PM|#

But now, we'll be ok- we were only attacked on 9/11 because there just weren't enough federal bureaucrats. That's why we have TSA and Homeland Security. Right?

|3.30.06 @ 4:54PM|#

I will say one thing in the FBI's defense. Before 9-11, it was unthinkable in most people's minds that anything like that could really happen. Had the FBI been all over it and rounded up a bunch of muslims in September of 01 and prevented the attack, I have no doubt there would have been a bunch of braying jackasses accusing them of overreacting and grabbing innocent people. Was FBI slack? Absolutely, but so was everyone else in the country.

|3.30.06 @ 4:54PM|#

It's damn near impossible to fire career-level federal employees, unless of course they make a racist joke or some other such horrible act. The mere death of 3,000 people probably doesn't suffice. And getting rid of only the top-level political appointees does little to change an agency like the FBI.

John, the answer to your question is that there is nothing anyone in the federal govt. can do to 100% prevent another attack. Terrorists are not idiots--they will figure out some new way of striking that the federal bureaucrats can't or won't catch onto. That's a chilling thought, I suppose, but welcome to the world, eh?

|3.30.06 @ 5:07PM|#

I'm still slack, John. As ChrisO says - "welcome to the world, eh?"

As a matter of fact, on 9/11, I said, "that's the price you pay for living in a free society."

Maybe a little glib, but I'm glad that we didn't have warrentless wiretaps going on all over the place trying to stop the (mostly) unstoppable.

I'm just not terrified of jihadists. Maybe it's cuz I don't live in NYC, but I'm sorry, I'm just not super worried about them.

|3.30.06 @ 5:16PM|#

Thank you, Lowdog.

No risk can ever be reduced to zero, and the costs of trying, financial and otherwise, are too high. Personally, I would like to see the fourth amendment remain in effect.

|3.30.06 @ 5:20PM|#

WOW great article albit a sad one. I especially love the last line.

|3.30.06 @ 5:24PM|#

Government bureaucracies are innately incompetent. It is a miracle that they function as well as they do.


Comment by: John at March 30, 2006 04:33 PM

you could leave out the word "government" and the sentence would be just as true. bureaucracies are typically incompetent. ever hear of the Peter Principle?

|3.30.06 @ 5:44PM|#

I will say one thing in the FBI's defense. Before 9-11, it was unthinkable in most people's minds that anything like that could really happen.

That may be the most important thing to remember when reading this piece and considering Mr. Samit's testimony. It's easy to say in retrospect that the FBI brass should have seen this coming or that they were criminally negligent. Did they make a mistake? You betcha. Were they criminally negligent. Doesn't sound like it to me. I'm sure the FBI is full of Junior G-Men who think they've uncovered some plot or another, only for it to turn out to be nothing. I would think the senior-level folks have to apply a bit of a filter so that the agency's resources aren't constantly being used on wild-goose chases. Also remember that this is based on one agent's testimony--we don't have the other side of the story, as it were.

|3.30.06 @ 5:50PM|#

ChrisO-

That's a valid point. If I were a senior official with a whole bunch of excited newbies working for me, I wonder how many Kaiser Soze sightings I'd get every week. "Boss, I'm just sure that if we give this guy immunity he can bring down an entire Mafia family!" "Boss, I just know that I've found Bin Laden's new location! I just know it!"

|3.30.06 @ 6:17PM|#

John writes: "Before 9-11, it was unthinkable in most people's minds that anything like that could really happen."

Because, you know, a hijacking by the guys who blew up the embassies and the USS Cole would be nothing to worry about.

Look - whether or not they realized the World Trade Center would be involved, it couldn't possibly turn out well, could it?

Warren|3.30.06 @ 6:20PM|#

That was an outstanding article Jeff. Well done.

|3.30.06 @ 6:53PM|#

"Was FBI slack? Absolutely, but so was everyone else in the country."

It isn't everyone else's job, it's the FBI's job. That's what they're for.

Excellent article Jeff.

Larry A|3.30.06 @ 7:18PM|#

I'm sure the FBI is full of Junior G-Men who think they've uncovered some plot or another, only for it to turn out to be nothing.

OTOH if you get two or more such leads from unrelated sources corroborated by other agencies you might want to at least check it out.

I would think the senior-level folks have to apply a bit of a filter so that the agency's resources aren't constantly being used on wild-goose chases.

Yeah. That's why all the high brass want vastly expanded surveillance powers so they can monitor 200,000,000 library card lending records.

Also remember that this is based on one agent's testimony--we don't have the other side of the story, as it were.

RTA: "The flipside of Samit is Michael Rolince, former head of the FBI's International Terrorism Operations Section. Rolince is the man who previously deflected questions about the FBI's pursuit, or lack thereof, of pre-9/11 terror suspects with the line, "Would CNN have really aired their photos if we'd asked them?""

|3.30.06 @ 7:21PM|#

The French. The fucking French were working harder to save us than our own goddam government!

Jesus!

I think it's time we renamed Freedom Fries to I Told You So Fries.

|3.30.06 @ 7:49PM|#

Had the FBI been all over it and rounded up a bunch of muslims in September of 01 and prevented the attack, I have no doubt there would have been a bunch of braying jackasses accusing them of overreacting and grabbing innocent people.

I kind of concur with this. By definition, it would have forced the FBI into a 'but for' style argument to justify their actions- and we all know how we hate 'but for' arguments.

Yes, the FBI needs to be shaken up. Preferably, a low-tolerance outsider needs to be placed within the bureau. A new director who will reduce the 'everything looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer' approach to internal security and intelligence. I agree totally with the street light analogy. This seems to be the only thing the FBI is good at, so that's where they spend their energy. This needs to stop, and stop now.
It's not going to stop the next terrorist attack, and it certainly isn't making any friends.

|3.30.06 @ 8:10PM|#

John, Paul:

Strawman alert!

This is not about whether the FBI should have been "all over it and rounded up a bunch of Muslims".

That is just pure fucking chickenshit.

What we're talking about here is whether legitimate, well-documented warning signs with a high degree of internal consistency voiced by three field offices simultaneously can be construed as cause for concern. And it seems pretty obvious they should have, but were not, for exactly the reasons Jeff puts forth.

Please don't build up these ridiculous strawmen and knock them down with equally sophmoric predictions of a "bunch of braying jackasses accusing them of overreacting and grabbing innocent people."

Our arresting of a figure like Moussaoui or Hani Hanjour based on the facts known at the time could not have created any outrage at all, much less braying jackasses.

Come on.

|3.30.06 @ 8:47PM|#

It wasn't unthinkable to me. I wasn't even surprised. My first words after hearing about the attacks were "So they finally did it."

Anyone who paid attention had a good reason to believe an attack was coming after the Cole, etc. Summer 2001 had roughly weekly reports of warnings of terrorist attacks.

That most people were surprised is, well, not surprising. Most people pay little attention to anything but food, sex, and entertainment.

|3.30.06 @ 8:48PM|#

RandyAyn: quite right. When was the last time the FBI really lost any sleep over what the ACLU thought? Their argument seems to be that they let 9/11 happen to teach the civil libertarians a lesson. What crap. The Feds have played this perfectly. What should have been a story about their blatant incompetence has been spun into an assertion that they need more power. "The steering's broke, so hit the accelerator!"

|3.30.06 @ 8:59PM|#

This was more than just the standard vague nutcase accusations. The FBI had a guy in custody, and memos from three different sections, including the names of the suspected hijackers. How much trouble would it have been to have sent someone out to question these guys? Get the warrant on Moussaoui's laptop? This was nothing more than obtuseness. Fatal obtuseness.

|3.30.06 @ 9:42PM|#

Good points made above. If the problem the FBI had before 9/11 is that they were turning up too many false leads, I don't see what good it will do to monitor everybody's library records.

And I agree with the people who pointed out that they didn't just get a newbie with a hunch. They had multiple people in different offices with the same hunch.

I don't believe the conspiracy theories. I do, however, believe the incompetence theories.

|3.30.06 @ 10:17PM|#

"Before 9-11, it was unthinkable in most people's minds that anything like that could really happen."

First, I agree with what was noted earlier here that it is not "most people's" jobs to think of this stuff, but it is part of the FBI's.

Second, there was precedence for terrorists using planes as missiles in general, and against structures in the USA specifically. In 1994, Islamic terrorists hijacked an Air France Airbus with the intention of either flying it into the Eiffel Tower or blowing it up over Paris. French Special Forces sucessfully assaulted the aircraft after fooling the terrorists into diverting the aircraft to Marseille for refueling. In 1995, diskettes were seized in a raid on a suspected terrorist hideout in the Philipines. On these disks were Project Bojinka--a Bin Laden supported terrorist group would hijack US bound commercial aircraft from Asia and crash them into targets in the USA. One of the suspected terorists arrested in the raid told both US and local authorities that he was taking flying lessons to prepare for attacks against FBI and CIA headquarters. I would think that these earlier incidences, combined with the suspiciously similar new info should have raised some eyebrows and generated some inquiries down this line of thought at the very least. I absolutely believe that it wasn't that nobody could see something like this happening, but that those in positions to possibly stop it couldn't believe it happening to us. I'm not saying they would have stopped 9/11 from happening, but the excuse that nobody envisioned something like this happening is fallacious CYA.

|3.30.06 @ 10:18PM|#

I'll go along with what someone above said, which is that we probably can't stop another terrorist attack, because we have no idea what kind it will be.
What we could to would be to greatly beef up our ability to respond to disasters. Like make sure everybody's radio works on the same frequency. And thinking in general about how to prevent the screw-ups that followed the WTC attacks. Not to mention Katrina.

|3.31.06 @ 1:55AM|#

The screw-up that was Katrina was the transfer of billions of dollars into the pockets of the well connected that should have been used to build a strong levy system. Those responsible are essentially mass murderers and should be strung up.

R C Dean|3.31.06 @ 7:25AM|#

Had the FBI been all over it and rounded up a bunch of muslims in September of 01 and prevented the attack, I have no doubt there would have been a bunch of braying jackasses accusing them of overreacting and grabbing innocent people.

Oh, come on. Nobody's going to quibble about whether preemptive action would be justified in response to an imminent threat.

I'll go along with what someone above said, which is that we probably can't stop another terrorist attack, because we have no idea what kind it will be.

There's a fallacy here. We can't stop every terrorist attack, but we can stop some of them, and we can stop more if we do things the right way. For one thing, we have a pretty good idea of what most attacks will consist of - there's a fairly limited range of options after all, involving bombs and guns. Someday involving gas (another kind of bomb, really) and germs.

Falling back to a purely defensive stance is a recipe for failure. No matter how good our disaster response, the more attacks leak through, the more likely we will lose civil liberties and give up ground to the terrorists.

|3.31.06 @ 7:37AM|#

Does anyone else think this will actually give the conspiracy nuts MORE ammunition? The hallmark of a conspiracy nut is someone who doesn't believe in government incompetence - they always find a purpose behind everything. I'm sure a number of people are going to decide that the top elite of the FBI and CIA knew about 9/11 and either let it happen on Bush's orders or actively made it happen. Conspiracy people are going to have a field day with this.

|3.31.06 @ 7:54AM|#

Loosely related:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/31/nterr31.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/31/ixhome.html

|3.31.06 @ 9:50AM|#

WIKI:
"On May 13, 2004 it was revealed that Nick Berg had been investigated during the U. S. government's investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui. Berg's email address had been used by Moussaoui prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. According to Berg's father, Nick Berg had had a chance encounter with an acquaintance of Moussaoui on a bus in Norman, Oklahoma. This person had asked to borrow Berg's laptop computer to send an email. Berg gave the details of his own email account and password, which were later used by Moussaoui."

mrwilloby|3.31.06 @ 2:20PM|#

Fantastic article, Jeff. It was a very important and poignant summary for those of us who do not follow all the news stories religiously.

Thank you for tying it all together. Keep up the good work.

|3.31.06 @ 2:54PM|#

While I agree that we can do some things to forestall attacks, I think the balance between current preventive measures and enhanced response has tipped way too far the wrong way. We're spending millions on useless surveillance of airline passengers and way too little on building up emergency response and training for responding to weird stuff.
And no, I don't think we can imagine the weird stuff that terrorists might think of. Read Bruce Schneier's 'Beyond Fear' for a rational view of how we mishandle security.