Rove would like to know what white collar crimes were being investigated for political hatchet jobs, and Cheney would like to control all domestic and international terrorist information before real intelligence analysts see it. So did they infiltrate the FBI’s computer system?

My questions are -
1. Did the July 10, 2001 email from the Phoenix FBI office to FBI Headquarters go through Cheney’s office via the FBI’s Automated Case
Support (ACS) system?
2. Was the ISD which was responsible for automation requirements eliminated to hide this fact?
3. Is it coincidence that the ISD was on its last legs in July 2001 and eliminated in early 2002?

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/…../chap3.pdf

Broader strategic analysis was performed by Intelligence Research Specialists(IRSs) who at time worked in the FBI’s Inyestigative Services Division (ISD), a separate division from the Counterterrorism Division.
…
When asked why he did not recommend including any IRSs on the
attention line [of the email], [the Intelligence Operations Specialist] told the OIG that the Investigative Services Division was “on its last legs” at the time and that there were very few IRSs in the ISD still working on analysis.
…
ISD was created in November 1999 and housed the FBI’s analytical resources, such as the IRSs who handled counterintelligence matters, organized crime and white collar crime matters, and domestic and international terrorism matters. In addition, ISD included an Intelligence and Operations Support Section that was responsible for administering the field’s analytical program and training and automation requirements. ISD was eliminated in the beginning of 2002.

from http://www.startribune.com/sto…..23144.html

Published Sep 25, 2002 MOUS25

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Two weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, a Minneapolis supervisory FBI agent told bureau headquarters that he wanted to make sure that Zacarias Moussaoui “did not take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center,” congressional investigators said today.

The agent, apparently the same figure scheduled to testify this afternoon before a joint House-Senate intelligence committee, then told the panel investigators that he had no reason to believe Moussaoui was planning such an attack, but was merely trying to get the attention of FBI headquarters, their report said.

But the unnamed Minneapolis agent said that the headquarters official replied, “That’s not going to happen. We don’t know he’s a terrorist. You don’t have enough to show he’s a terrorist. You have a guy interested in this type of aircraft — that is it.”

In the report on their inquiry into the FBI’s handling of its investigation of Moussaoui, the committee staff said that the headquarters official “does not remember this exchange.”

The staff report laid out in detail the steps that Minneapolis agents took after Moussaoui was detained on Aug. 16, 2001, after he aroused suspicions at a Twin Cities flight school where he was trying to learn how to fly a 747 jet without having a pilot’s license.

The report said that even while preparing for Moussaoui’s deportation to his home country of France on immigration violations, the agents continued discussing with FBI headquarters whether there was enough evidence to justify a national security warrant authorizing a search of Moussaoui’s possessions.

Moussaoui had traveled to Chechnya to join members of Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaida terrorist group in fighting the Russians, and the discussion focused on whether the Chechen rebels qualified as a “recognized” foreign power on the State Department’s list of terror groups, the report said.

For officials to obtain such a warrant, the subject of such an investigation must be linked to a hostile foreign power or terrorist group.

But the report said the dialogue was “based on a misunderstanding” of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The FBI’s deputy general counsel told the joint congressional investigative staff that, in fact, the FBI can obtain a search warrant under the FISA law for any international terrorist group, including the Chechen rebels.

The report said “because of the misunderstanding Minneapolis (agents) spent the better part of three weeks trying to connect the Chechen group to Al-Qaida,” including stepping outside bureau protocol and directly contacting the CIA’s counterterrorism center. FBI headquarters never agreed to pursue a FISA warrant before Sept. 11, insisting that there was insufficient evidence.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, a search warrant was sought and granted, and Moussaoui has been charged with conspiracy in the attacks.

If you think about the mindset of Bushco back in 2002, it is clear that they were consumed with creating a rationale in order to invade Iraq. Prior to October, 2002, the only AUMF was the one that stated that the targets of force had to have a connection to 9/11. It wasn’t until October, 2002 that Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq. The torture tapes presumably predate the Iraq authorization. They were looking for something that could fit into the first AUMF, not the second one. Also, supposedly, the torture stopped during 2002. Maybe it stopped on those particular people, because they didn’t need it anymore, because they finally got the Iraq AUMF in October. Prior to the Iraq AUMF, I believe that they were hoping they could torture info out of someone saying Saddam was involved in the planning of 9/11 in some way. It makes sense to me that W did view the tapes in the run up to the war in Iraq, which is what I think this was about…not about terrorism and OBL. It makes sense to me that he wanted to hear what the tortured person “admitted” to, and to see how they got the information so he could further use it to formulate and support his agenda to invade Iraq. It makes sense to me that he most likely viewed it with Cheney and perhaps others. I don’t think he viewed it in order to determine whether any of it was torture, but just to hear and see how his authorized harsh interrogation techniques worked. It also makes sense to me that someone told Bush and or Cheney that those particular pre-Iraq AUMF tapes were being requested in court proceedings later. It makes sense to me that he and/or Cheney would personally order the tapes to be destroyed, in 2005; because they didn’t want anyone to know the real reason they were torturing those particular people, in addition, to being vulnerable to war crimes.

This is obviously complete conjecture on my part…but it makes sense to me.

You cannot be a scumbag lawyer even though your college days stories might state evidence otherwise…Besides you are never impatient with non-lawyer types like myself nor do you patronize. Funny but not patronizing…

I agree with your theory to an extent. However, I do think AT&T will get their “facial” in court because of the Qwest story…Which is why I think the immunity issue with FISA is back on the table for the Senate. AT&T does not like what the courts are pointing to right now and immunity is their only hope…

The Roosevelt quote was featured yesterday in an OpEd in the Miami Herald:

The dispatch of a strong presidential message and the follow-through with appropriate investigation and sanctions would do much to restore our place in world opinion and integrity in our dealings with detainees in Iraq and elsewhere. Instead of providing leadership, the administration has tried to block real investigation, preferring to construe out of existence congressional measures that would restrict the use of ‘torture or inhuman conduct.’ This has been done with the complicity of the Department of Justice, which is now under new leadership.

http://www.miamiherald.com/851/story/341376.html

The author was Talbot D’Alemberte, former President of the American Bar Association and former President of Florida State University.