Ignoring 'Old Europe'
In a bombshell story, the New York Times is reporting that the C.I.A. screwed up by failing to track down one of the 9/11 hijackers, Marwan al-Shehhi, even though the Germans had passed on his name and telephone number two and a half years before he flew an airplane into the World Trade Center.
In March 1999, German intelligence officials gave the Central Intelligence Agency the first name and telephone number of Marwan al-Shehhi, and asked the Americans to track him… After the Germans passed the information on to the C.I.A., they did not hear from the Americans about the matter until after Sept. 11, a senior German intelligence official said.
"There was no response" at the time, the official said. After receiving the tip, the C.I.A. decided that "Marwan" was probably an associate of Osama bin Laden, but never tracked him down, American officials say.
The incident is of particular importance because Mr. Shehhi was a crucial member of the Qaeda cell in Hamburg at the heart of the Sept. 11 plot. Close surveillance of Mr. Shehhi in 1999 might have led investigators to other plot leaders, including Mohammed Atta, who was Mr. Shehhi's roommate. A native of the United Arab Emirates, Mr. Shehhi moved to Germany in 1996 and was almost inseparable from Mr. Atta in their time there… American and European authorities say that Mr. Shehhi was actively involved in the planning and logistics of the Sept. 11 plot.
If heads don't roll here, and they may not given the abysmal standards imposed on intelligence information in recent months, it's hard to see when they ever will.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If our intelligence agencies are under duress due to a plethora of leads and clues, I have to wander why they are trying to facilitate the gathering of even more information by getting banks to report suspicious transactions, data mining, public photo surveillance, etc.
Perhaps they are seeking better excuses to explain their failures.
If the gov't stopped spending billions of resources capturing, prosecuting and imprisoning recreational users of illicit drugs, they could spend a little more on intelligence personnel.
Perhaps politicians suffer the delusion that U.S. resources are infinite and they can do it all.
See? See? Bush knew!!! This just shows how it's all Bush's fault! Most shocking of all, he and the neocons are responsible as far back as 1999!
If the CIA passed the message to the FBI in a timely fashion it is not to blame.
Thanks to the Frank Church Committee's demasculation of the CIA in the 70s, there was a brick wall which deliberately prevented the FBI and CIA from sharing such information. This is one of the 9/11 causes that was corrected by the Patriot Act.
See Why the FBI Didn't Stop 9/11
"Who here wanted American troops to stay in Somalia after the Rangers got killed?"
I did. I thought it was stupid to leave. (Lebanon too.)
"Bring the troops home!" is almost never wise public policy...it is part of the same mind-set that thinks "Heads must roll!" is good public policy.
I will concede that there was (across the board) little real support for an active foreign policy during the 90's. I give Clinton generous credit for managing what he did.
joe...if you aren't going to blame the political leaders, why scape-goat their functionaries?
Because keeping tabs on know agents of terrorist groups is a day-to-day part of the spooks' job description, not a policy to be implemented at the behest of the political leadership. Would I blame Clinton if the DPW didn't repave my street when it needed it? No, they should be doing that stuff all along.
Career intelligence employees are not, or should not be anyway, the functionaries of politicians.
joe
I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that you are a fan of "accountability in government" in the sense that you would like to set aside civil-service protections for government employees, and have them systematically hired and fired on some kind of performance basis. This crap is just the scandale-du-jour.
Realistically, I can't call to mind a single historical example of a society (or any part of one-- say, a city) that made progress by firing a lot of little guys (much less, a FEW little guys) doing their jobs (and sometimes-- that's real life-- NOT doing them).
Can you? A week after the Revolution, the cops show up for work.
Heads Will Not Roll.
Sorry but this administration only punishes honest citizens, not inept bureaucrats. Accountability will not be forthcoming from this fox den. All they want to do is keep the 'condition yelllow elevated' crap floating so they can bully, harass, and tax us into mindless hulks. A pox on Bush, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld.
It's hard to comprehend the hubris of the CIA. On September 11th the government failed in it's most fundamental function: to protect it's citizens. Yet no one, that I know of, lost their job.
There are a number of mistakes I can make at work that would get me fired in a New York minute. None of which come close to the intellegence foul-up that allowed terrorists to attack us.
It seems as though there is no intellegence in the Central Intellegence Agency.
So, what is it we libertarians are supposed to be in favor of... a strong and effective CIA, or a weak one that doesn't pose a threat to anybody's liberties?
Somebody help me, quick - my narrative thread of libertarian purity is unraveling...
This is,sadly, no bombshell.
"It seems as though there is no intellegence in the Central Intellegence Agency."
You've got that right. As much as I hate to blame anything on our millitary, a lot of it comes from putting ex-millitary people in intel jobs. The mindset of a spook and a solder are just too different, but the CIA likes to save money on background checks. Higher up, it's political apointees on power trips. Good luck getting them fired. What ever happened to hiring genuine creepy bastards (eg Hoover)?
Joe,
Just curious, what does "punishes honest citizens" refer to?
Only with the advantage of hindsight does this article contain any "bombshells". I have never, nor do I know anyone that works at the cia. hHwever, I think I can assume a couple of things safely. 1) Its a big world and there are a lot of bad guys making a lot of noise. 2) We can not expect the CIA to be able to completely exhaust every single lead that comes in the door, as I would imagine that they get quite a few of them. Trying to would lead us to a scenario where we would become vulnerable by being mired in a sea of worthless information.
Now, certian conclusions can be jumped to. For instance, the lead wasn't tracked down due to someone's lazyness or ineptness. In that case, yes, heads should roll. If some told me that some jackass had the "operational master plan" for the attacks under his nose but was laying down on the job and didn't notice, that would be a bombshell. But this article does not provide any hard evidence from which to draw such a conclusion. All it says is that German intelligence gave us a first name and a phone number, and said this info should be of internest. That's it.
Some might say Paul O'Neill was sacked for his honesty...
And Joe, why the pox on the "House of Bush" for something that happened in March of '99? Seems to me that you should be happy that he's covering for Clinton and protecting that all-important "Legacy" of his.
The mid-level bureaucratic screw up (probably) happened under Clinton. Had nothing to do with the admininstration.
But now that the information about the screw up is public, it's Bush's responsibility to act. Will he?
I'm looking for some mid-level spook to get the full Martha Stewart treatment to distract the country from the 9/11 probe and the Iraq intel probe.
Oh, and I'm joe, not Joe.
I am generally in agreement with JimInNova. However, these sorts of "clerical errors" are common between intelligence services.
Hick American,
Tommy f'in Chong is in prison for selling glass pipes to consenting adults. If I were to pick one example of what Joe might have meant by "punishes honest citizens" this is the first one that jumps to my mind. Ed Rosenthal, the Guru of Ganja, is in the running too, along with a couple million other people in prison or "under state supervision" for violating drug laws.
Adam,
Some would say that selling drug paraphernalia is against the law and would disallow the term "honest citizen". I feel like I am an honest citizen, but I got busted for 2 joints during the first Bush administration. What does that have to do with anything? This just rhetorical crap, same as calling Bush a Nazi. By the way, I asked little j joe, not you.
Andrew, different cops in different positions. Maybe dropping this ball isn't worth 15 people's jobs, I don't know what passes for adequate job performance in the intel business, but there are always opportunities for reorganization.
Yea, joe, I actually kinda figured that wasn't you on that first post.
joe,
I thought it was you and figured you would have something intelligent to say in defense of your first post. I was really interested in your response. Sorry
This article doesn't provide any context to evaluate whether the information the Germans provided rose above the level of noise. It doesn't show:
(1) How many times did the Germans pass on similar information? If the Germans routinely sent reports that said, "A Germany based extremist called somebody whose first name was Marwan in Quatar." why should the CIA have thought this was uniquely significant at the time?
(2) How many similar leads from many different sources did CIA have to process? Why should this particular piece of information have stood-out?
It does no good to lop off individual heads if an organizations fails to due systemic problems. 9/11 was a clusterf*ck baby with many fathers. Every agency and branch of government contributed to the failure. I think we will find that legal barriers, near universally shared misconceptions, institutional inertia, infighting and other well known causes of institutional failure caused the failure to prevent 9/11.
We will also never find the true source of the failure as long as the partisans in D.C. use the issue as a club to beat their enemies. (Yeah, like my post addressed to Joe earlier. That was sarcasm, not my true opinion).
20/20 hindsight, and a pointless witch hunt. To imagine that, with 9/11 never having taken place, the CIA would be politically and legally empowered to have prevented it, based on a variety of "tips", is absurd. Even after 9/11, law enforcement cannot ask simple questions of Muslims without being pilloried by civil rights extremists - to imagine meaningful restriction of Islamic terrorism with the politically correct constraints in place on 9/10 is completely unrealistic.
If lessons are to learned from the 9/11 intelligence "breakdown" it is that the intelligence had inadequate political and institutional support for the necessary enforcement.
Z,
Well, by '99 we had some experience with Al Qaida, including WTC I and the embassy attacks in Africa. We had reason to take Al Qaida terrorists seriously, and it seems that the previous administration did so to some degree, although clearly it messed up much more than it did good.
One of the biggest mistakes of the Clinton administration was the decision to tuck tail and run after getting burned in Somolia--sending out exactly the wrong signals to America's foes. But really, Clinton posed one screw up after another. Does the intel failure point to Clinton? Don't know, but it sure don't point to George W.
The bottom line, really, is that there will always be intel failures, that's the nature of the buisness. Giving up more freedom won't eliminate failures, although we could engage in cost/benifit analysis.
z,
You frankly, don't know what you're talking about. Before 9-11, I used to get stopped in the airport pretty regularly (I would say 80% of my trips through Logan) and was told, striaght up, that I "fit the profile" by security. That would never happen today. It never bothered me because the extra checks pre-9-11 were less invasive than the ones everyone gets now. I would say we became more sensitive to racial profiling of Arabs after 9-11. It's one thing to ask someone questions simply because they are Muslim. It is quite another thing to ask questions because of tips from German intelligence. It is intellectually dishonest to say they are the same thing. It's the difference between pulling someone over for DWB versus getting a description from a witness (well, a description with more substance than "he was black").
Just look at the recent National Guard situation. If we focused only on those that looked like an Arab/Muslim terrorist, we would have never caught him. I'm not saying the CIA dropped the ball on this, the context of the reliability of German intelligence and the level of seriousness they assigned to this individual are all crucial pieces of information. However, comparing responding to tips from an ally's intelligence service to harassing people simply for looking Arab/Muslim is a joke.
Don,
It wasn't just Clinton. Look at Reagan and from Lebannon. That sent the same message as Clinton and Somalia.
Uh. Lest you all forget - tracking enemy agents in America is the job of the FBI.
If the CIA passed the message to the FBI in a timely fashion it is not to blame.
Clinton faced enormous pressure to get out of Somalia from the opposition-controlled Congress, which only increased after the attack. I imagine the same was true of Reagan after the barracks attack. To the extent that the "paper tiger" issue is really a problem, it belongs to both parties.
Who here wanted American troops to stay in Somalia after the Rangers got killed?
Still, all you are advocating joe, is that we find someone to blame for this, punish them and then conclude that some problem has been solved...and as I said, that NEVER accomplishes anything. In fact, not only is it not worth doing, it is positively mischievous-- just spreading the fall-out from this event more widely.
Stephen - as the CIA is not permitted to opperate inside the US, I have no problem with using a strong CIA to undermine the liberties of foreign nationals that are trying to kill me. Of course, I also have no problem with using low-yeild tac nukes on known Hezbolah camps, so I may be something of an extremist.
I agree the intel "system" is the likely culpret. Balls get dropped for lots of reasons and hindsight is, well, hindsight. Gov't agencies are generally handicaped by the lack of forced evolution in response to market pressures. 911 exposed intel to a large market force.
Everyone I know is surprised we have not been hit again. Is this due to success or luck? Time will tell.