FBI "Criminal Negligence" Before 9/11!!

[Nickdfresh]

FBI Was Warned About Moussaoui
Agent Tells Court Of Repeated Efforts Before 9/11 Attacks

By Jerry Markon and Timothy Dwyer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 21, 2006; A01

An FBI agent who interrogated Zacarias Moussaoui before Sept. 11, 2001, warned his supervisors more than 70 times that Moussaoui was a terrorist and spelled out his suspicions that the al-Qaeda operative was plotting to hijack an airplane, according to federal court testimony yesterday.

Agent Harry Samit told jurors at Moussaoui's death penalty trial that his efforts to secure a warrant to search Moussaoui's belongings were frustrated at every turn by FBI officials he accused of "criminal negligence." Samit said he had sought help from a colleague, writing that he was "so desperate to get into Moussaoui's computer I'll take anything."

That was on Sept. 10, 2001.

Samit's testimony added striking detail to the voluminous public record on the FBI's bungling of the Moussaoui case. It also could help Moussaoui's defense. Samit is a prosecution witness who had earlier backed the government's central theory of the case: that the FBI would have raised "alarm bells" and could have stopped the Sept. 11 attacks if Moussaoui had not lied to agents. But under cross-examination by the defense yesterday, Samit said that he did raise those alarms -- repeatedly -- but that his bosses impeded his efforts.

The testimony came as the sentencing hearing resumed for the only person convicted in the United States of charges stemming from the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Jurors in Alexandria will determine whether Moussaoui should live or die. The proceeding was derailed last week by the misconduct of government attorney Carla J. Martin, who improperly shared testimony with upcoming witnesses and coached them.

An angry U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema halted the hearing for a week. She barred the testimony of the witnesses Martin had contacted and all aviation evidence, gutting the government's case. But after prosecutors offered a compromise, Brinkema issued a revised order Friday saying they could use new aviation witnesses not tainted by Martin's conduct.

Brinkema began the day yesterday by welcoming jurors back to court and quizzing them about whether they had seen or read any of the extensive media coverage, which she had barred them from doing. When they shook their heads no in unison, the judge said, "You've been wonderful."

Nowhere to be seen was Martin, the Transportation Security Administration lawyer whom Brinkema has blamed for the disruption. She could face contempt of court or other criminal charges, and Moussaoui's attorneys had urged her to explain her actions at a special hearing yesterday. That hearing was never convened, and Brinkema did not mention it. Martin's attorney has said she would not testify.

Paul Bresson, an FBI spokesman, declined to comment on the testimony from Samit, who remains an agent in the FBI's Minneapolis office. The primary supervisor Samit accused of impeding his investigation, Michael Maltbie, said in a phone interview yesterday that the issues raised in court "have been looked at extensively by Congress, the Justice Department, my own people."

"The [FBI] director has given me a chance to respond to some of these issues that have come up," said Maltbie, a former counterterrorism supervisor at headquarters in Washington and now a supervisory special agent in Cleveland.

Moussaoui, 37, pleaded guilty in April to conspiring with al-Qaeda in the Sept. 11 attacks. He was sitting in jail on that day of terror because of his arrest a month earlier after his activities raised suspicion at a Minnesota flight school.

The FBI's missteps have been examined in depth by congressional investigators and the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks.

Yesterday, as jurors watched images of FBI documents flashing on TV screens, defense attorney Edward B. MacMahon Jr. walked Samit through a recital of government mistakes, framing nearly every question with the words: "You wanted people in Washington to know that . . . right?''

MacMahon zeroed in on increasingly urgent warnings Samit issued to his FBI supervisors after he interviewed Moussaoui at a Minnesota jail in mid-August 2001. Moussaoui had raised Samit's suspicions because he was training on a 747 simulator with limited flying experience and could not explain his foreign sources of income.

By Aug. 18, 2001, Samit was telling FBI headquarters that he believed Moussaoui intended to hijack a plane "for the purpose of seizing control of the aircraft." A few days later, he learned from FBI agents in France that Moussaoui had been a recruiter for a Muslim group in Chechnya linked to Osama bin Laden.

But when Samit tried to use the French intelligence in his draft application for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to search Moussaoui's belongings, he said, Maltbie edited out the connection with bin Laden because it did not show that a foreign government was involved.

"How are you supposed to establish a connection with a foreign power if it's deleted from the document?" MacMahon asked.

"Well, sir, you can't," Samit replied.

Samit said he also sent an e-mail to the FBI's bin Laden unit but did not receive a response before Sept. 11, 2001. By late August, the agent had concluded that Maltbie and other FBI officials were no longer interested in investigating Moussaoui. Samit acknowledged that he told the Justice Department's inspector general's office that his supervisors engaged in "criminal negligence" and were trying to "run out the clock" because they wanted to deport Moussaoui rather than prosecute him.

Most portions of the inspector general's report dealing with Moussaoui have never been made public.

"You thought a terrorist attack was coming, and you were being obstructed, right?" MacMahon asked.

"Yes, sir," Samit answered.

Samit said he kept trying to persuade his bosses to authorize the surveillance warrant or a criminal search warrant right up until the day before the planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"You never stopped trying, did you?" MacMahon said.

"No, sir," Samit replied.

Staff writer Dan Eggen and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/AR2006032000240.html)

Yeah, but let's take people's civil rights away thought the Patriot Act/NSA Spying when these asshats can't even use the legitimate powers to investigate...:rolleyes"

[Nickdfresh]

MacMahon zeroed in on increasingly urgent warnings Samit issued to his FBI supervisors after he interviewed Moussaoui at a Minnesota jail in mid-August 2001. Moussaoui had raised Samit's suspicions because he was training on a 747 simulator with limited flying experience and could not explain his foreign sources of income.

By Aug. 18, 2001, Samit was telling FBI headquarters that he believed Moussaoui intended to hijack a plane "for the purpose of seizing control of the aircraft." A few days later, he learned from FBI agents in France that Moussaoui had been a recruiter for a Muslim group in Chechnya linked to Osama bin Laden.

But when Samit tried to use the French intelligence in his draft application for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to search Moussaoui's belongings, he said, Maltbie edited out the connection with bin Laden because it did not show that a foreign government was involved.

"How are you supposed to establish a connection with a foreign power if it's deleted from the document?" MacMahon asked.

"Well, sir, you can't," Samit replied. --The Washington Post.


Fucking outrageous!! They had the power to investigate these bastards all along!!:confused: :o :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Nickdfresh]

Roommate Told FBI of Moussaoui Interests
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:16 AM EST
The Associated Press
By MATTHEW BARAKAT

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — A former roommate of confessed al-Qaida terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui told FBI agents that Moussaoui had expressed an interest in holy war and believed Muslims were within their rights to kill infidels, according to court testimony.

A videotaped deposition of Hussein al-Attas, who roomed with Moussaoui in 2001 in Oklahoma and was with Moussaoui in Minnesota in August 2001 when he was arrested by federal agents, was to be played for the jury Tuesday when Moussaoui's death-penalty trial resumes.

The jury got a preview of some of al-Attas' statements through the testimony Monday of Harry Samit, the FBI agent who arrested Moussaoui in August 2001 and also interrogated al-Attas.

Samit testified that his belief that Moussaoui was a radical Islamic extremist bent on terrorism was based in part on al-Attas' statements.

Al-Attas told Samit that Moussaoui often talked about jihad, or holy war, and that Moussaoui once pointed out to him a television report about Osama bin Laden, with Moussaoui noting that bin Laden was an important person.

Samit testified that he worked obsessively after Moussaoui's Aug. 16, 2001, arrest to convince FBI headquarters that Moussaoui warranted a full-scale investigation and that a search warrant should be obtained for his belongings.

The agent obtained a search warrant only after the Sept. 11 attacks, and attributed the FBI's failure to launch a timely investigation to "criminal negligence" and careerism by certain agents in FBI headquarters. The bureau's failures thwarted an opportunity to prevent the attacks, he said.

Moussaoui is the only person charged in this country in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks.

He has already pleaded guilty to conspiring with al-Qaida to hijack aircraft and commit other crimes. But he denies a specific role in 9/11. His sentencing trial will determine his punishment: death or life in prison.

The FBI's actions between Moussaoui's arrest and Sept. 11 are crucial to the trial because prosecutors allege that Moussaoui's lies to Samit prevented the FBI from thwarting or at least minimizing the Sept. 11 attacks. Prosecutors must prove that Moussaoui's actions caused the death of at least one person on 9/11 to obtain a death penalty.

The defense argues that nothing Moussaoui said after his arrest would have made any difference to the FBI because its bureaucratic intransigence rendered it incapable of reacting swiftly to Moussaoui's arrest under any circumstances.

———

Associated Press Writer Michael J. Sniffen contributed to this report.

[Cathedral]

Talking to yourself again, Nick? lmmfao

I feel a, "But Clinton...." coming soon.

***chirp, chirp, chirp***

Hey is that a bird i hear?

[Nickdfresh]

Jesus CAT. Did you read the article? I never mentioned CLINTON, you did...

Let me break it down for you, even though I don't have time too, since apparently people only understand the base, sexy topics like: A.) 9/11 was an inside job by evil PNAC basturds B.) Chimpeachment now! C.) Commie-lib pussy wimps prevented ABLE DANGER from doing their job D.) If you're not for the IRAQ, you're a traitor etc....



I'm talking about the fact that on more than one occasion, the FBI was onto the 9/11 plot, and could have stopped it cold, as late as in August of 2001. But the people are clamoring for illegal wiretapping and the overreaching "unPatriot Act" are wrong, because this is a solution for a problem that has been misdiagnosed. It was not lack of internal security powers that led to 9/11, it was bureaucratic incompetence, by both parties but most keenly the Republicans and the FBI, that led to that fateful day...

****END OF NICKD TRANSMISSION****

[Cathedral]

You don't need to break it down for me, I read the article and have excellent reading comprehension skills.

I was just pointing out that someone is going to pop in with a "But Clinton" because of his own missed opportunities.
The point your making is a tad hypocritical, that was MY point if I must break it down for YOU.

You seem a bit tense today, Nick...Is everything alright in Freshville?

Relax buddy, and stop jumping to conclusions on my posts, lol.

[Nickdfresh]

Nobody else has a comment?

[Warham]

Yep, I find that the Justice Dept under the Clinton administration didn't help matters.

Janet Reno and Jamie 'Great Wall of China' Garelick are names that come to mind right off the top of my head.

[Nickdfresh]

Golly, CLINTON was President in August of 2001?

Funny, I thought it was GORE...;)

[Nickdfresh]

Yeah, I can see you guys don't want to touch this...

We'll see how it plays out in the national media...

It almost reeks, like the faint stench of someone wanting a hijacking to happen, someone in the hallowed halls of power...

"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of War©."

[Nickdfresh]

Oops.

[Warham]

How about we say that the FBI, CIA and every other intelligence gathering operation in the USA was incompetent in dealing with terrorists during both the two Clinton and first Bush administrations?

Would that be a fair assessment?

[FORD]

It would be more accurate to say that the Clinton administration could have done a lot more if they weren't crippled by two factors:

1) Bullshit investigations into the President's personal life that wasted the Justice Department's time (including the FBI, which was led by that incompetent ass Louis Freeh)

2) Everything Clinton & Gore tried to get passed was rejected by a hostile Republican congress.

As for Poppy, he didn't want an investigation, because he knew damn well that any TRUE assessment of the facts would come right back to him and his Saudi butt buddies.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by FORD
It would be more accurate to say that the Clinton administration could have done a lot more if they weren't crippled by two factors:

1) Bullshit investigations into the President's personal life that wasted the Justice Department's time (including the FBI, which was led by that incompetent ass Louis Freeh)

2) Everything Clinton & Gore tried to get passed was rejected by a hostile Republican congress.

As for Poppy, he didn't want an investigation, because he knew damn well that any TRUE assessment of the facts would come right back to him and his Saudi butt buddies.

It is so hard for you guys to concede an inch isn't it?

Like Nick's wrong assessment that we don't want to touch this, that isn't true.
There is nothing to touch because we agree to a point.
It only gets sticky when we try to lay the rightful responsibility on the Democrats for governmental corruption.

As Warham suggested, we could go back a few administrations and lay blame at its rightful feet.
But let's take a step further and go all the way back to when corporations first started calling the shots in this country...I believe it was about the time the Federal Reserve was founded.

And since I don't recall anything any Democrat Administration has done to end the corporate dick sucking themselves that in a sense makes them part of the problem in MY opinion.

Actually, maybe it's time to re-name your coveted BCE the ACE......I think you can agree, or should agree.

Nothing is Holy in Washington, Ford....Nothing, not even our joke of a born again "Christian", George W. Bush.

[Nickdfresh]

Actually, it's not a "wrong assessment," you guys will sit and argue over and over again, in at least four to six long ass "9/11 Was an Inside Job Conspiracy" threads since I've been here, and more than a few before me I'm thinkin'... Yet, you can't even acknowledge this... And don't tell me anyone has, because I'm the only to comment on it's content so far, while others have made some pretty typical factual errors showing they did little more than skim it, if they even did that much, and use assumptions...

Funny, maybe I should post an "ABLE DANGER" thread and get about 20 responses from NeoCon ass-baiters about how the 9/11 Commission is biased and not "telling the truth"...

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
It would be more accurate to say that the Clinton administration could have done a lot more if they weren't crippled by two factors:

1) Bullshit investigations into the President's personal life that wasted the Justice Department's time (including the FBI, which was led by that incompetent ass Louis Freeh)

2) Everything Clinton & Gore tried to get passed was rejected by a hostile Republican congress.

As for Poppy, he didn't want an investigation, because he knew damn well that any TRUE assessment of the facts would come right back to him and his Saudi butt buddies.

Nice try FORD. The Democrats were in control of Congress during Clinton's first two years. What meaningful legislation was passed then?

[Warham]

Why are you guys pussyfooting around? I gave Bush a D- during his first term in office.

Where's your scolding of Clinton?

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by Warham
Why are you guys pussyfooting around? I gave Bush a D- during his first term in office.

Where's your scolding of Clinton?

LMMFAO, I gave Bush an A+ for his first term and an F- for the second.

Nick, I agree that all commissions do is waste tax payers money to tell us what we already know.
If you want to do something prodcutive on either side of the aisle then these commissions should be made up by The People, not those who have something to hide.

I believe they are all bised in one way or another and in every case be it right or left, something is covered up.

[FORD]

Have you guys ever asked yourselves WHY the right wing went out of their way to harrass Clinton the entire length of his Presidency?

NIXON was investigated for crimes that were committed while he was President.

REAGAN & POPPY were investigated (albeit very poorly) for treasonous funding and arming of worldwide terrorism, which occurred while they were in the White House.

When CHIMPY is impeached, it will be for what he has done since January 20, 2001. Not any illegal business dealings he did with Osama's brother in the 1970's.

So why was CLINTON investigated for things that had taken place YEARS before he was in the White House that had nothing to do with his Presidency? And when THAT investigation failed, why did they go after his personal life?

Could it be that the right wing, in fact the BCE themselves, (Ken Starr & Ted Olson are known BCE associates) wanted to PURPOSELY keep Clinton distracted so he had less time to spend dealing with such matters?

For what purpose?

Best case scenario - they simply didn't want a Democrat to take credit for anything.

Worst case scenario - They couldn't allow Clinton to act because their agenda for THIS decade was already being planned out, and it depended on a healthy "Al Qaeda"

And if you think that's too deep into tin foil hat territory, then offer your own explanation. Again, what was the purpose of harrassing Clinton for things that had nothing to do with his job?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Why are you guys pussyfooting around? I gave Bush a D- during his first term in office.



Bullshit


I want to see a link :rolleyes:

[Warham]

AGAIN, I ask, where is your criticism of Clinton's handling of terrorist threats during the 90's?

Also, the Republicans 'harassed' Clinton after 1998, and after he lied to a grand jury.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
AGAIN, I ask, where is your criticism of Clinton's handling of terrorist threats during the 90's?

I'd gladly criticize CLINTON, if he had been able to carry out his plan and it failed, and had not been the victim of so much bullshit that extends into this forum --daily. I actually disliked Clinton very much on many levels. But the partisan attacks, and the overall effectiveness of his governance, won me over to some extent. But I've dispelled far too much "9/11's all Clinton's Fault" BS in this Forum to even take a serious look, but I have criticized CLINTON here; but you irrational partisans put me in the unenviable position of defending him...

My criticism is this: He could have used his will, his charisma to have galvanized and untied the nation against terror, both foreign and domestic...

But of course, the Republicans kept saying he was "wagging the dog." So it is very thought to attack him when he was so investigated and attacked to begin with...


Also, the Republicans 'harassed' Clinton after 1998, and after he lied to a grand jury.

Yeah, over a private affair, when he was being investigated for financial dealings and conspiracy theories, yeah, how can I forget?:rolleyes:

BTW, when do you guys criticize REAGAN or BUSH Sr.?

[Warham]

It ain't private anymore once you lie to a grand jury.

[Warham]

Irrational partisans? Coming from you? :rolleyes:

It's funny how the only people you'll defend are Democrats. That's interesting and quite telling.

We put you in no position where you had to defend him. You defend him of your own free will, because let's face it, you like the guy. Don't beat around the bush. You've criticized Clinton like I've criticized George W. Bush.

[DLR'sCock]

I knew this years ago, there were a number of investigations pre 9-11 that were thwarted by our gov't.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Irrational partisans? Coming from you? :rolleyes:

It's funny how the only people you'll defend are Democrats. That's interesting and quite telling.

We put you in no position where you had to defend him. You defend him of your own free will, because let's face it, you like the guy. Don't beat around the bush.

You've forgotten Sunshine, that I've defended JOHN McCAIN in this Forum...

And people like you --reciting every dime-store, two-bit conspiracy theory, made me like him. I didn't vote for CLINTON in 92.' Who'd you vote for?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
It ain't private anymore once you lie to a grand jury.

But he didn't "lie."

[Warham]

John McCain, that diehard conservative?? Wow, let me give you a high five for that!

John McCain could run as a Democrat and win their nomination in '08. :rolleyes:

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And people like you --reciting every dime-store, two-bit conspiracy theory, made me like him.

I'm glad you feel that way. Every BCE thread here has made me like W. even more over the last two years.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
But he didn't "lie."

Nick, stop with the jokes. You're cracking me up here.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
John McCain, that diehard conservative?? Wow, let me give you a high five for that!

Oh, I see, he's less of a Republican because he won't suck the religious right's dick? Well, fuck him! Let's make up seedy bullshit about his "******" (words of 'anonymous' Republican pollsters in South Carolina in 1999/2000, during the Primary) Bangladeshi adoptee child being 'born out of wedlock' then...

That's exactly what you support "Christian!"


John McCain could run as a Democrat and win their nomination in '08. :rolleyes:

God, how I'd love that. Except he supports sending more troops to Iraq to "win."

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm glad you feel that way. Every BCE thread here has made me like W. even more over the last two years.

You're talking to me, not FORD. Try to keep up...

[Warham]

I don't support people calling blacks '******s'. If I remember right, that's what Democrats in the south called them for a hundred years. But that's nice of you trying to label me like that.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You're talking to me, not FORD. Try to keep up...

You've defended FORD in here before.

Once you cross that threshold, there's no turning back.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I don't support people calling blacks '******s'. If I remember right, that's what Democrats in the south called them for a hundred years. But that's nice of you trying to label me like that.

Most of those "Democrats" became Republicans, like Strom THURMAN...

You support KARL ROVE and vote BUSH, that's what you support...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
You've defended FORD in here before.

Once you cross that threshold, there's no turning back.

Not when it came to the BCE BS...

[Warham]

I'm the passive agressive type. I've only attacked Clinton after I've seen you libs here grabbing your ankles in defense of him and his administration every chance you get.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Most of those "Democrats" became Republicans, like Strom THURMAN...

You support KARL ROVE and vote BUSH, that's what you support...

They weren't 'Democrats', they were Democrats. Let's get that straight before we go further.

Abe Lincoln was a Republican.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Why are you guys pussyfooting around? I gave Bush a D- during his first term in office.

Where's your scolding of Clinton?

Probably happened in the last decade when he was President.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm the passive agressive type. I've only attacked Clinton after I've seen you libs here grabbing your ankles in defense of him and his administration every chance you get.

LOL Not in my case, you were ripping his ass from day one...

[Warham]

So Clinton couldn't do his job against terrorism properly because the big bag Republicans had been hounding him since day one, keeping him busy in depositions and legal briefs?

He still seemed to have time for his interns though. Isn't that something.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
They weren't 'Democrats', they were Democrats. Let's get that straight before we go further.

Abe Lincoln was a Republican.

They were Dixiecrats, and very conservative by nature, part of this was the encoding of the status quo, including racism and Xenophobia, into Southern culture...

You know the shifts that took place in the 1960s...

And ABE LINCLON was a "Radical Republican," about the farthest thing there is from today's "Christian-Right co-opted Republican party..." He was practically an Atheist...

[Warham]

I'd rather be a member of the Co-opted Christian Republican party than the Godless self-loathing Democratic party.

Personal preference, ya know. :)

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
So Clinton couldn't do his job against terrorism properly because the big bag Republicans had been hounding him since day one, keeping him busy in depositions and legal briefs?

He still seemed to have time for his interns though. Isn't that something.

Man, a good bj only takes like 5 minutes tops.

[Cathedral]

LMMFAO, Nick, Warham...Y'all did a lot of dancin just to end up back where you began.

Damn, that was a riot...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
AGAIN, I ask, where is your criticism of Clinton's handling of terrorist threats during the 90's?
.

Again, I ask you to finally buy a calendar. :rolleyes:


YOU guys were ON DUTY when we were hit.

YOU are charged with making us safer, and bringing justice to those who did this.


You claim we're safer, but can only offer a "hey, we aint been hit since" retort, and you sure as hell haven't brought down the group that did this.

You gave them a new battle ground, training ground, and recruitment tools.

Doin a heckuva job, guys.:rolleyes:




I'll concede that Bubba got more head from female interns than George, and you concede that BushCO & The Chimp have fucked this entire charade up from the start.


Well done:cool:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
I'd rather be a member of the Co-opted Christian Republican party than the Godless self-loathing Democratic party.

Personal preference, ya know. :)


Imagine our disappointment at the news......

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh, I see, he's less of a Republican because he won't suck the religious right's dick?


That maverick ;)

[Nickdfresh]

WTF, bump this too!