CT tactics justified by authoritarianism

[noise]

It truly is pathetic. We are being told that torture was brilliant CT policy. Closing Guantanamo endangers the country. Prosecuting Bush officials is outrageous as everyone knows damn well their illegal CT tactics were good faith efforts to protect the country.

One thing one won't find in the Bush apologist articles--any questioning of 9/11. It simply isn't up for review. The MSM has moved on. No need to rehash the past. To this very day, the media has never interviewed either official who headed the FBI or CIA Bin Laden units in the lead up to 9/11. Are you kidding me? That's like failing to interview either Super Bowl QB before the game yet in the case of the Bin Laden units we are talking about 3,000 murdered people. One would like to think there would be a little more interest. Alec Station withheld intel for twenty months? Wow. I wonder why that happened. Maybe the Chief of Alec Station could provide an answer. Cole investigators not told that two al Qaeda operatives linked to the Cole attack were in the US and there were indications there could be an attack? Wow. I wonder why that happened. Maybe the Chief of the UBLU could answer that.

Bragging about torture, indefinite detention, warrantless surveillance, etc. while avoiding honest discussion of 9/11 isn't impressive. It's authoritarian propaganda.

[jakeXT]

1. What is CT?

I saw Debra Burlingame talking about Guantanamo on CNN a couple of days ago, does anybody know more about her?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2453108

[JackRiddler]

3. In this case: Counterterrorism, though on this board it's usually "conspiracy theory"...

Debra Burlingame, sister to Charles Burlingame the pilot of Flight 77, has acted as the lead spokesperson among the Sept. 11 relatives in support of the Bush policies, the government narrative of what happened on Sept. 11, and the "war on terror."

At times she's acted as the answer to the "Jersey Girls" and the Family Steering Committee. (See their site at http://www.911independentcommission.org. The FSC led the charge for lobbying on behalf of an independent 9/11 Commission; several of them later rejected many of its findings as a whitewash.)

Burlingame was one of the Sept. 11 relatives the Pentagon allowed into the military tribunal proceedings against the alleged 9/11 masterminds, supposedly after a random selection procedure. She is outspoken in her support for these proceedings and for Guantanamo.

[greyl]

4. She also wrote: "The 9/11 Commission becomes another Beltway soap opera."

I find a lot to agree and disagree with in what she writes.

When a group of dedicated New Jersey women whom I'd never met organized a rally in a park near the Capitol, I was there under the hot summer sun, carrying a poster that said, "The men who murdered my brother were listed in the San Diego phone book." It had a large picture of him, Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, sitting in the cockpit of a Boeing 757 with a big smile on his face. Chic was the captain of American Airlines Flight 77, the plane that was flown into the Pentagon. The picture was especially meaningful to me because he was smiling at our dad, who took the picture. It is the way I like to think of Chic, in the cockpit of a jet, smiling, the way he would have looked if Hani Hanjour, the young Saudi who had once lived in San Diego and who steered Chic's plane into the Pentagon's west wall, had knocked on the door at the end of an ordinary flight and asked for a cockpit tour. So, yes, I was mad. Damn mad. And I wanted to know how the hell this could have happened.

Today, the great hopes I had for an independent, bipartisan investigation into the events of 9/11 have given way to great sadness. After the Senate and House Joint Inquiry into intelligence activities leading up to 9/11 was published in 2002, I had a different perspective about who was responsible for the attacks. It was everyone, and no one. It was the systemic and institutional problems in the information-gathering, analysis and reporting structures of our dozen or more intelligence agencies. It was the legal barriers that prevented law enforcement and intelligence services from talking to each other. It was Cold War modalities that no longer applied to very evil men with apocalyptic delusions operating in adaptive networks with cell phones and laptops, and supported by millions and millions of dollars. It was our own fat complacency, refusing to see what was happening around us as American soldiers, sailors and civilians were being blown up abroad. It was the airline lobbyists who looked after their well-heeled clients as we fashioned airline security measures that called upon ACLU lawyers rather than law enforcement experts for advice about passenger screening.

More

[JackRiddler]

5. September 11th Advocates Statement on Guantanamo Closing

For immediate release
January 23, 2009

The Guantanamo Bay Detention Center continues to be an enormous stain on America’s reputation. Newly elected President Obama has taken the first step in removing this stain by keeping his campaign promise to the American people.

The temporary halting of proceedings at Gitmo gives us the “audacity to hope” that President Obama will be able to restore America's good name, which has been repeatedly tarnished during the past eight years.

We appreciate the tough decisions that President Obama has been forced to make and admire him for taking these difficult tasks on. We look forward to hearing his plan for closing Guantanamo Bay forever, finding a just way to try the detainees and putting an end to this horrific chapter in America's history.

# # #

Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

Additonally, please see earlier statement below, which further explains our position.

September 11th Advocates Statement
April 3, 2008

As women whose husbands were killed on September 11 2001, we feel strongly that the perpetrators of that horrific crime should be brought to justice. But first it is imperative to prove that these six detainees are indeed the guilty parties.

Unfortunately, the Administration insists on trying the suspects in the broken military commissions system. Prosecuting these men within a system that is secretive in nature and lacking in due process, and which uses evidence tainted by questionable interrogation methods and possibly even torture, is a dangerous endeavor. All Americans, and indeed the entire international community, must have the opportunity to witness for themselves the body of evidence that ties these individuals to the 9/11 terrorists’ plot. Otherwise the credibility of any verdict will lack legitimacy. Moreover, unless these trials are above reproach, any convictions will bring the wrath of the international community, damaging what is left of America’s standing in the world. Considering that we continue to rely heavily on cooperation from other nations to provide us with intelligence information on would be terrorists, this course of action can only be detrimental to these crucial relationships, thereby jeopardizing our national security.

These trials, when they finally take place, will be scrutinized around the globe. Unless the victims’ families, the American public and the entire world can be convinced that we are trying and convicting the people who are truly responsible for the 9/11 crimes, these trials will be seen as a miserable failure, dimming our prospects of improved international relationships, and making us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks in the future.

On behalf of ourselves, our husbands, and our families, we support the American Civil Liberties Union in its pursuit of justice and insistence on due process. The only outcome worth pursuing is the truth, and the only way get there is by fair trials that uphold the Constitution.

September 11th Advocates

Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

---

Picked up at
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19177

[jakeXT]

9. I saw an article recently, unfortunately not written by a lawyer

Are there more comments by lawyers or constitutional scholars on this topic?



Conclusion


The loopholes in President Obama’s executive order on torture may permit cruel abuses of prisoners to continue, using a legal parlor trick. Labeling detainees the product of counterterrorism operations rather than of armed conflict, or holding detainees in detention facilities operated by entities other than the CIA, may allow government agents and private contractors conforming to the letter of the president’s order to continue practices most would consider torture. The president should close these loopholes or explain to Americans why he won’t.



James Hill is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, and a clinical assistant professor of radiology at the University of Southern California School of Medicine. The views expressed are solely his own.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12041

[rhymeandreason]

2. False Flag Attacks Work

Find me one single historical example of a false flag attack for which the perpetrators were prosecuted. I can't find any. False flag attacks work, in fact they are infallible, people will not accept that their leaders and protectors could be capable of such iniquity. After eight years of bringing the most damning evidence to the public's attention it is hugely discouraging but 9/11 will never be fully investigated, the real perpetrators will never be brought to justice and it will become a historical footnote along with the USS Maine, the Bermuda Triangle and the dancing coffins of Barbados.

[jberryhill]

8. The Bermuda Triangle?

Could you elaborate on that.

[AZCat]

10. I was kinda interested in the dancing coffins thing myself. n/t

[LARED]

12. I looked it up

http://www.dexterdyne.org/402.HTM

The bigger mystery is how this is related to false flag attacks.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. The local authorities perpetrated the dancing coffins because

they wanted to use the site as a tourist attraction.

[LARED]

17. Does that qualify as a false flag attack?

I don't think so.

[rhymeandreason]

15. Example

Has anyone been able to find a single example of a false flag attack wherein the perpetrators were exposed and prosecuted?

[Joel the K]

6. You know it.

You know. I am new here. I found this place because some people were speculating about our AmericanPreppersNetwork. You know the usual. Tinfoil hat wearin nutters, conspiracy wackos, all that. Because we are not pre-programed sheeple clones. I see you are awake. How long?

[greyl]

7. This doesn't look like a thoroughly rational, helpful, or altruistic approach:

We believe it is our God-given mission to help you and your family prepare for the Great Tribulation. We stand behind our product and trust them with our very lives. We offer laboratory-tested gas-masks, UL approved protective suits with hood, heavy-duty chemical gloves that protect all the way up to your elbow, and heavy-duty yellow rubber nuke boots. In addition to this, each Doomsday Survival-Pak comes with a three day supply of potassium iodate, the same tablets kept on hand by workers at nuclear power-plant facilities.

Insiders in government are quietly buying up potassium iodate and germ-resistant suits and masks at an alarming rate. They know what is coming: mass airborne germ release, chemical attack, radiological terrorism, and actual nuclear detonation on American cities. Warren Buffett was quoted as saying that a nuclear event will happen on an American city. The insiders are expecting it. And they are prepared for it.

Now you can be prepared to survive emerging plagues, pandemics, or any type of contamination.

Order now using Pay-Pal or Major Credit Card On Our 100% secure ordering page.

Each Pak Comes With Easy to Undserstand Instructions.

[William Seger]

11. Baaa-a-a-a-a-a

Sheeple, too, need to beware of those who merely wish to split them off from the flock and fleece them.

[JackRiddler]

13. So how about a discussion of noise's excellent, simple, moderate points?

QUOTE:

To this very day, the media has never interviewed either official who headed the FBI or CIA Bin Laden units in the lead up to 9/11. Are you kidding me? That's like failing to interview either Super Bowl QB before the game yet in the case of the Bin Laden units we are talking about 3,000 murdered people. One would like to think there would be a little more interest. Alec Station withheld intel for twenty months? Wow. I wonder why that happened. Maybe the Chief of Alec Station could provide an answer. Cole investigators not told that two al Qaeda operatives linked to the Cole attack were in the US and there were indications there could be an attack? Wow. I wonder why that happened. Maybe the Chief of the UBLU could answer that.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. A discussion of noise's excellent, simple, moderate points

Cofer Black was the head of the CIA unit in charge of tracking bin Laden, Alec Station, in the leadup to 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cofer_Black

Interviews with him by the media:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/interviews/black.html
http://www.mensjournal.com/cofer-black
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2003/September/20030910080314yarg0.6897699.html

Therefore, noise's assertion that the head of the CIA Bin Laden Unit has not been interviewed by the media yet is wrong.

Before Black, Mike Scheuer was the head of the CIA unit. It was his son Alec that the unit was named for. Mr. Scheuer appears on every media outlet he can to excoriate every other person involved in the hunt for bin Laden except himself.

There was no "bin Laden unit" in the FBI. There was a counterterrorism unit, and John O'Neill was the head of it in the leadup to 9/11. He died in the collapse of the towers, having just a week before taken a job as the head of security there. It would have been impossible to interview him in the media.

This discussion of noise's excellent, simple, moderate points concludes that noise should examine his assertions for factual accuracy before making them.

[JackRiddler]

18. Cofer Black was not the head of the CIA Bin Ladin unit, known as Alec Station.

He was on the level above that as head of CT, and therefore no more the (direct) head of Alec Station than Tenet, or Tenet's boss.

Alec Station was indeed the CIA's unit directly devoted to Bin Ladin, founded at the initiative of David Cohen. The first head was Michael Scheuer. The second head of Alec Station was Rich B. I believe Rich B is the person never interviewed that noise is referring to.

For a good documentation of what's available online wrt to these references, see as usual the 9/11 Timeline. Here are 69 entries relating to Alec Station.

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=%22alec+station%22&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

Excerpt on the switch from Scheuer to his successor, "Rich B" (not Cofer Black).

June 1999: CIA Appoints New Chief of Bin Laden Unit; His Management Style Is Not Popular

Following the firing of Michael Scheuer, the founding head of Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit (see June 1999), a new chief of the station is appointed. The chief, known as Rich B, worked in Algeria as a case officer during the civil war there in the early 1990s (see January 11, 1992) and prior to his appointment as station chief was an executive assistant to CIA management. (Coll, 2004, pp. 456) He also served on an Iraqi task force attempting to destabilize Saddam Hussein’s regime in the mid-1990s. (Harper's, 1/28/2007) According to author Steve Coll: “Since he came directly from Tenet’s leadership group, his arrival was seen as a signal of renewed high-level interest in the bin Laden case. The new chief’s connections presumably would help attract resources to the cause and smooth decision-making.” In addition, “He (knows) the bin Laden issue, he (knows) the Third World and he not mind high-risk travel.”
Criticism of Management Style - However, Rich B’s management style will attract some criticism. Coll will say that he is “intense and sometimes emotional and combative” and that he is seen by some colleagues as “typical of the unyielding zealots” at Alec Station. (Coll, 2004, pp. 456, 540) Author James Bamford will comment, “But the most serious problem was Rich B ‘s lack of management, his myopic obsession with bin Laden, and his focus on the fun and adventure part of the job.” (Bamford, 2004, pp. 218-9) Journalist Ken Silverstein will say: “Sources have told me that has frequently been divisive and ineffective in previous positions.… His reputation and relationship with the military, especially the special-ops community, is very bad, based on substantive issues that arose during his time (in Afghanistan and Pakistan) post-9/11.… Another former official called a ‘smart guy‘…, but described him as a terrible manager.” (Harper's, 1/28/2007)

Entity Tags: Alec Station, Central Intelligence Agency, James Bamford, Rich B., Steve Coll, Ken Silverstein

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

[noise]

19. Right you are

Scheuer headed Alec Station from '96 to mid '99. Rich B. (one of the remarkable aspects is that he retained his classified status after 9/11!) took over and headed Alec Station until about December '01 when he took over for Berntsen and became station chief of the reopened Kabul station. Basically a promotion after 9/11!

The reason I keep bringing up the FBI UBLU is because we know so little about them. The Chief (in the lead up to 9/11) was Rod Middleton. Middleton joined the UBLU in ‘99 and was Unit Chief from 6/28/01 though 9/10/01. For some reason Watson didn’t call him back after the attacks and instead had Kevin Foust take over the unit. One of the key agents in the UBLU was Dina Corsi. She was the agent who invoked the wall to justify her conduct (keeping alHazmi/alMihdhar intel from the Cole investigators) when in fact the wall was not applicable.

I've searched all over the place for information about the UBLU. The most informative article was written by Lindsey Nair in the Roanoke Times:

The UBLU, as it is called in the bureau (because the FBI spells it Usama, not Osama), had only existed for about four years. Before that, bin Laden and al-Qaida were the responsibility of the Radical Fundamentalist Unit.

The UBLU's mission was to track bin Laden, his actions, his intentions and anything related to al-Qaida.

The unit consisted of 18 people, including analysts who ate, slept and breathed bin Laden.

Agent's career forged in the fires of terrorism

Incredibly (AFAICT) the 9/11 Commission didn't interview Middleton! That is outrageous. How could they not interview him? They did interview both agent Corsi and Rich B. but those interviews are still classified. Rich B.'s interview is pending classification review and Corsi's isn't listed at all. One of the reasons I wrote the OP/rant was because I kept reading articles justifying torture, warrantless surveillance and Guantanamo. A popular talking point was that citizens who want investigations of Bush officials are out of line. In fact, John Yoo wrote an op-ed today in which he defended all the illegal CT tactics as crucial, patriotic measures to keep us safe. Their arguments are only possible due to the secrecy. They don't want the public to know what happened in the lead up to 9/11. They don't want the public to be able to assess their claims about the illegal CT tactics. It's pure authoritarian bullshit.

As far as the organizational chart, I think it was something like this:

CT Division: ITOS: RFU, UBLU and perhaps a state sponsored terrorism unit. Run from D.C. headquarters building.

I-49: JTTF, run out of the NY office. Mix of NYPD, FBI and the SDNY (i.e. Patrick Fitzgerald).

D.C. field office: CT response units (i.e. overseas).

There appeared to be overlap. For example, Dan Coleman seems to have been part of the I-49, the response team and CIA's Alec Station. O'Neill seemed to be part of the I-49 and the response team.

Note: History Commons is a better source for actual organizational chart information.

[JackRiddler]

20. Thanks! All very good points, perhaps finally to be investigated...

at least a bit further now. One hopes, if nothing else, there will be document releases or FOIAs met on these points.

As for History Commons...

that's the new name of CooperativeResearch.org, home to the long-running (since 2002) "Complete 9/11 Timeline" edited by Paul Thompson with many able and excellent contributions from Kevin Fenton, both on DU. So we're talking about same thing. And I don't think there are greater experts on this subject in the world.

[noise]

21. Anyone looking for helpful summaries

of key 9/11 aspects will appreciate Fenton's blogs:

History Commons Interactive

http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/">History Commons Groups

[Bryan Sacks]

22. Fenton made an important post on this subject in early November

http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/response-to-peter-dale-scott-alec-station-must-have-known/

The two most senior officers involved in withholding information about Almihdhar from the FBI, as well as their own superiors, are Tom Wilshire, deputy chief of Alec Station until May 2001 and then Alec Station’s representative to the FBI’s International Terrorism Operations Section, and Rich B, his boss at Alec Station. Wilshire was the key figure in the withholding of information, blocking a cable to the FBI about Almihdhar in January 2000, and continuing to keep information about him from it in 2001.

In the summer of 2001, both men were highly aware that al-Qaeda was planning an attack against US interests. In fact, Rich B was the lead briefer within the government on these attacks and briefed not only CIA Counterterrorism Center Chief Cofer Black and CIA Director George Tenet, but also National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, including at the famous 10 July meeting revealed by Bob Woodward, on the attacks’ possible, date, form and location.

Wilshire was clearly aware that Almihdhar was a likely participant in the forthcoming attacks. In an e-mail sent on 23 July 2001, he wrote:

When the next big op is carried out by hardcore cadre, will be at or near the top of the command food chain—and probably nowhere near either the attack site or Afghanistan. That makes people who are available and who have direct access to him of very high interest. Khalid should be very high interest anyway, given his connection to the .

The recipients of this e-mail are not known. However, it is highly likely that they included Rich B, Wilshire’s former boss, as this e-mail follows on from another sent 10 days before that Rich B received. It is worth pointing out that the existence of this e-mail was only disclosed after the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006. It was not mentioned in the Congressional Inquiry Report, the 9/11 Commission Report or the Justice Department Inspector General Report. It appears in Wilshire’s substitution for testimony for the trial and the substitution seems to be based on the Justice Department IG report.

Almihdhar’s Presence in US Discovered

Wilshire therefore knew that there was to be an attack and that Almihdhar may well be involved. About a month later, he officially learned that Almihdhar was in the US, when he was informed of this by Margaret Gillespie, one of his former colleagues at Alec Station, and then Dina Corsi, an agent he worked with at the FBI. It is highly likely that Rich B also officially learned Almihdhar was in the US at this time, as Gillespie was one of his subordinates and clearly appreciated Almihdhar’s presence in the US was big news.

At this point, Wilshire and Rich B had three pieces of information: there was going to be a major al-Qaeda attack, Almihdhar was “very high interest” in relation to this attack and Almihdhar was in the US. Given that Almihdhar was a member of a terrorist organisation dedicated to fighting the US, it could not have been hard to forecast that the attacks would be in the US.

However, there is no record of Rich B doing anything with this information, although he clearly should have briefed Black and Tenet. It is worth noting that Rich B already thought that the major attack was going to be in the US. It is also worth mentioning that he was the officer in charge of US operations in Afghanistan when bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora, and that he played a key role in the ramping up of rendition after 9/11. Rich B is also said to be the son of a controversial former CIA officer.

Wilshire’s performance was even worse. Not only did he not tell anyone at the FBI that Almihdhar was a likely participant in a forthcoming major attack inside the US, he even helped Corsi in her attempts to restrict the resources the FBI could use to look for Almihdhar.

Conclusion

Presumably, the other CIA officers who had walk-on parts in the withholding of the information from the FBI did believe that the information was being withheld for some purpose other than allowing attacks against the US, such as to penetrate al-Qaeda networks in the US without interference from the bureau. However, given that Wilshire stated that he thought Almihdhar was “very high interest” in connection with the forthcoming attacks, he cannot have thought a presumed “black” operation monitoring the hijackers in the US was solely aimed at following Almihdhar to uncover al-Qaeda networks in the US and had no connection to the attacks. It is also highly likely that Rich B was aware of Almihdhar’s link to a forthcoming attack in the US.

Finally, it should be pointed out that the hijackers’ operational security was poor. For example, members of the four different teams lived together, including with Almihdhar and Alhazmi, and the two men repeatedly telephoned bin Laden’s operations centre in Yemen, which was under surveillance by the NSA and CIA. It would not have been at all difficult for the “black” team monitoring Almihdhar and Alhazmi to discover the other hijackers, their flight training and their ticket purchases shortly before 9/11. Yet there is no known attempt by this team to disrupt the plot./b]

Alec Station had ample information that could have been used to stop the plot, but prevented the FBI from acting on this information. In addition, it took no known actions to stop the plot itself. The conclusion that it wanted the attacks to go ahead seems inescapable.

[jakeXT]

26. I noticed this blog when the interviews were released

http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/summaries-of-911-commission-interviews-released/



Did someone discover more interesting things in there, or are the good ones all classified?

[wildbilln864]

24. Holy shit guys!

You don't mean the all knowing and mighty Bolo doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about AGAIN do you? Incredible!

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Yes, that is correct. My bad.

But I notice that you reserve your fact checking for me and not noise, whose assertion that John O'Neill was not interviewed after 9/11 is simply laughable.

[noise]

27. Rod Middleton was the head of the FBI's Bin Laden Unit

AFAIK, O'Neill was involved on the criminal side of al Qaeda terrorism cases whereas the FBI UBLU was an intelligence unit.

Why the UBLU is such a big deal:

1) The FBI had jurisdiction for domestic terrorism. Thus, CIA should have told the UBLU in January 2000 that al Qaeda operatives were headed for San Diego.

2) In the documentary On Native Soil, one of the extras is an interview with Dale Watson who headed the CT Division at FBI headquarters. Watson talked about the lack of resources. Obviously he was lying as the FBI had an 18 man unit dedicated to Bin Laden. There is a similar issue with the CIA. For years, Tenet and Black have complained about the lack of funding and manpower. They too are not being honest as it wasn't CIA's job to prevent terrorist attacks in the US. Again, they only had to tell the Bin Laden unit that alHazmi and alMihdhar were in the US and those 18 agents could have opened an investigation. Or better yet, the UBLU could have gotten the criminal side agents involved. One, alHazmi and alMihdhar were linked to the Yemen hub which was associated with the 1998 embassy bombings. Two, Bin Laden was indicted for this attack in 1998 which apparently gave FBI criminal agents the ability to pursue investigations against al Qaeda operatives. Three, after the Cole attack alHazmi and alMihdhar were linked to Cole plotters by way of the Malaysia meeting.

Where are the interviews with any of these 18 agents? Why is the UBLU such a secret? What were they doing in the months leading up to 9/11?

[noise]

23. Recently someone posted

about Scheuer's interview of Steve Coll on Book TV. I forgot where I read it.

After Words: Steve Coll, "The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century" interviewed by Michael Scheuer

Scheuer said that "Before 9/11 the Saudis were the enemy, they protected Bin Laden." Yet we have been told (by our government and the Saudis) for years that Bin Laden was the black sheep and was in fact an enemy of the royal family who was forced to leave Saudi Arabia and had his citizenship revoked for seeking to overthrow the royal family. What gives? It should be noted that Scheuer (AFAIK) has never explained CIA's bizarre pre-9/11 conduct. When asked (in an Antiwar Radio interview) to explain it he blamed the sharing failure on the FBI's outdated computer system. He failed to mention that the information was shared in late August of '01 after around 20 months of withholding. One should note the FBI's shitty computer system wasn't miraculously upgraded in August. The point being nobody in the US government appears willing to level with the public about 9/11 and al Qaeda terrorism in general.