Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FISA Court Discouraged Moussaoui Warrant
NewsMax.com ^ | Dec. 23, 2005 | Carl Limbacher

Posted on 12/23/2005 8:32:22 AM PST by Carl/NewsMax

Led by the New York Times, a chorus of administration critics have been insisting all week that there was no reason for President Bush to circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court when he sought to wiretap terrorists operating inside the U.S. - since the FISA Court almost always approves such requests.

But that's not what the Times reported three years ago, after FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley came forward with the allegation that the Bureau might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if only investigators had been allowed access to the laptop computer of suspected 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui.

Moussaoui was arrested in Minneapolis on Aug. 16, 2001 - nearly four weeks before the 9/11 attacks - after an instructor at a local flight school he attended called the F.B.I. to report that he suspected the Moroccan-born terrorist was up to no good.

In a May 2002 report the Times noted: "Two days later, F.B.I. agents in Minnesota asked Washington to obtain a special warrant to search his laptop computer."

However, there was a problem. The paper explained:

"Recent interviews of intelligence officials by The New York Times suggest that the Bureau had a reason for growing cautious about applying to a secret national security court for special search warrants that might have supplied critical information."

"The F.B.I.," officials told the Times, "had become wary after a well-regarded supervisor was disciplined because the [FISA] court complained that he had submitted improper information on applications."

The secret court went so far as to discipline Michael Resnick, the F.B.I. supervisor in charge of coordinating terrorist surveillance operations, saying they would no longer accept warrant applications from him.

Intelligence officials told the Times that the FISA Court's decision to reprimand Resnick, who had been a rising star in the FBI, "resulted in making the Bureau far less aggressive in seeking information on terrorists."

"Other officials," the paper said, complained that the FISA Court's actions against Resnick "prompted Bureau officials to adopt a play-it-safe approach that meant submitting fewer applications and declining to submit any that could be questioned."

Sen. Charles Grassley is among those who think that the FBI might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if the FISA Court hadn't discouraged the Bureau from aggressively pursuing a warrant in the Moussaoui case.

In a January 2002 letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller, Grassley noted that had a search been permitted, "Agents would have found information in Moussaoui’s belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the [9/11] hijacking plot working out of Germany, and to a Malaysian Al Qaeda boss who had met with at least two other [9/11] hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials."


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: fbi; fisa; gwot; moussaoui; nytimes; patriotleak; spying; terrorism; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

1 posted on 12/23/2005 8:32:23 AM PST by Carl/NewsMax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax

Bureaucrats win.


2 posted on 12/23/2005 8:35:14 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax

UNNNGH...


3 posted on 12/23/2005 8:35:22 AM PST by Wristpin ("The Yankees have decided to buy every player in Baseball....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: Carl/NewsMax

Big fat BTTT Yeah NewsMax!


5 posted on 12/23/2005 8:36:55 AM PST by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
The secret court went so far as to discipline Michael Resnick, the F.B.I. supervisor in charge of coordinating terrorist surveillance operations, saying they would no longer accept warrant applications from him.

Would this have anything to do with the recently resigning judge. Hmmmmm.

6 posted on 12/23/2005 8:39:29 AM PST by Valpal1 (Crush jihadists, drive collaborators before you, hear the lamentations of their media. Allahu FUBAR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
"Keep it simple"

This article is simple. President Bush is right.

7 posted on 12/23/2005 8:40:29 AM PST by ncpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
To expect that America's "newspaper of record" would be either consistent or accurate in its reporting is just tilting at windmills. Neither consistency nor accuracy is warranted if it doesn't support the proper ideology.

Somebody should turn old Pinch over to the terrorists for a weekend or so just for drill - it could never change the jackass's viewpoint, but it would be an elixir of sorts for everyone else.
8 posted on 12/23/2005 8:40:50 AM PST by vetsvette (Bring Him Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax

Zacarias Moussaoui should have been put up against a wall on Lower Broadway and shot on September 12, 2001.


9 posted on 12/23/2005 8:40:50 AM PST by Jim Noble (Non, je ne regrette rien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

But the fisa judge that went after the fbi guy, was that perchance the clintoon judge that just resigned?????


10 posted on 12/23/2005 8:41:02 AM PST by stumpy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
Judge who resigned over NSA program a partisan Clintonista
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1546051/posts

Same judge????

11 posted on 12/23/2005 8:41:45 AM PST by Valpal1 (Crush jihadists, drive collaborators before you, hear the lamentations of their media. Allahu FUBAR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
This is an interesting article, especially in light of the fact that this "court" denied exactly one request during the Clinton administration. Could this be political games being played by the judges?
12 posted on 12/23/2005 8:44:15 AM PST by zeugma (Warning: Self-referential object does not reference itself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax

Thanks for pointing this out. The Dems would like us to have forgotten it.


13 posted on 12/23/2005 8:46:44 AM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax

This is one of the reasons, and I'm sure there are others.

But, as the Washington Times editorial says, according to the 'Rats, they're the only ones who should be allowed to wiretap.


14 posted on 12/23/2005 8:51:23 AM PST by MizSterious (Anonymous sources often means "the voices in my head told me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax

This can't be stated often enough, imo. It's as though the leftists don't WANT us to catch the jihadists.


15 posted on 12/23/2005 8:53:49 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1; Carl/NewsMax; FairOpinion; Howlin; Peach
"Judge who resigned over NSA program a partisan Clintonista http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1546051/posts

Same judge????"

Excellent question. Can anyone dig into this possibility?

16 posted on 12/23/2005 8:54:05 AM PST by MizSterious (Anonymous sources often means "the voices in my head told me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Peach

I'm positive they don't. Remember the big fat kiss Hillary planted on Arafat's wife. There has to be a money trail that will tell us why.


17 posted on 12/23/2005 8:55:12 AM PST by MizSterious (Anonymous sources often means "the voices in my head told me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stumpy

Yah, sure !


18 posted on 12/23/2005 9:08:47 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1

The judge who censured Resnick was Judge Royce Lamberth.


Here is an article about him.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0204.mencimer.html

"Lamberth proved he wasn't kidding in March last year when he censured Resnick. Unfortunately for Lamberth, after September 11, when the FBI received unexpected criticism for shoddy counterterrorist investigations, law enforcement officials blamed Lamberth. They argued that his censure had a chilling effect, making lawyers leery of seeking new wiretaps---such as the one critics say the bureau should have requested for Zacarias Moussaoui. Thought to be the "20th terrorist," Moussaoui is the Moroccan man arrested in August after he tried to learn how to fly a plane but not how to land it. (Officially, the FBI has denied that Lamberth had anything to do with the decision not to surveil Moussaoui.)

Because the whole episode is classified, it's impossible for the public to really know whether this was another case of Lamberth going ballistic over a minor bureaucratic snafu or a serious screwup by the Justice Department. Either way, civil libertarians were reassured simply to know that the judge really was exercising his oversight role on the court with an eye towards protecting constitutional rights.

"Lamberth has demonstrated a refreshing willingness to scrutinize government claims and to demand absolute accuracy from the government filings. You'd be surprised how rare that is," says Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and one of the few lawyers actually to set foot inside the FISA court. "

I am sure Lambert can be proud that his "tough stance" on "protecting civil liberties" allowed 9-11-01 attacks to take place.

Do we need another major attack, before people wake up and realize that you have to be able to tap potential and actual terrorists conversations and be able to interrogate them, when captured, by whatever means necessary, to prevent an attack.


19 posted on 12/23/2005 9:17:26 AM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax

what this shows is that the courts cannot be trusted to conduct a domestic war on terror involving agents of foreign powers on US soil. there are simply too many protections offered by our judicial system, its a system that is primarily designed to deal with crime AFTER it has occurred - which is of no use when trying to stop domestic terrorism.


20 posted on 12/23/2005 9:20:08 AM PST by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson