Avedon Carol at Sideshow:

Not too many people are claiming that the White House masterminded the 9/11 attacks; the issue is whether they upheld their responsibilities, and the evidence is pretty clear that they did not.The issue was never that there was a "silver bullet" the administration failed to use, it was that they were doing nothing to try to prevent an attack they had been warned was very likely to occur.

We agree with law prof Eric Muller who writes the blog Is That Legal? when he criticizes Andrew McCarthy 's article in National Review about the wall preventing information sharing between intelligence and criminal investigation agencies. McCarthy says:

the "wall was . . . a deliberate and unnecessary impediment to information sharing. . . . It told national-security agents in the field that there were other values, higher interests, that transcended connecting the dots and getting it right."

Eric replies:

Umm, well, yeah. Those "other values" are little things called "civil liberties," and what makes them "higher" is that they're reflected in the highest law of the land, the Constitution. If you read this blog, you'll know that I'm no "sky-is-falling" civil libertarian who has howled about everything law enforcement has done since 9/11. But I am very worried by the direction that today's testimony before the 9/11 Commission is taking, and by what seems to be the Commission's emerging self-appointed role to diagnose problems and recommend changes in law enforcement practices.

We received this from Deryl Dantzler, Dean of the (much revered) National Criminal Defense College:

The 911 Commission Staff Statement of 4/13 points out that the pervasive practice of concealment of information from criminal defendants was part of the reason that the FBI was unable to process the information they had. Efforts to circumvent Brady, Rule 16 and 18 USC 3500 prevented them from doing their jobs!

As prepared for delivery to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Law Enforcement, Counterterrorism, and Intelligence Collection in the United States Prior to 9/11 Staff Statement No. 9:

"

"Agents developed information in support of their own cases, not as part of a broader, more strategic effort. Given the poor state of the FBI's information systems, field agents usually did not know what investigations agents in their own office, let alone in other field offices, were working on. Nor did analysts have easy access to this information. As a result, it was almost impossible to develop an understanding of the threat from a particular international terrorist group.

"Agents investigated their individual cases with the knowledge that any case information recorded on paper and stored in case files was potentially discoverable in court. Thus, there was a disincentive to share information, even with other FBI agents and analysts. Analysts were discouraged from producing written assessments which could be discoverable and used to attack the prosecution's case at trial."

"

The full text of the statement is available here. (pdf)

by TChris

Attorney General John Ashcroft seized the opportunity afforded by 9/11 to launch an assault on the Constitution and on legislation designed to hold the power of law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies in check. But what did Ashcroft do about the threat of terrorism before 9/11? Not much, according to sources who have seen draft reports by the 9/11 commission.

TalkLeft has called attention to documents indicating that Ashcroft de-emphasized terrorism and to reports that he may have actually hindered counterterrorism efforts. It appears that the draft reports of the 9/11 commission confirm that view.

They said the draft reports, which are expected to be completed and made public during two days of hearings by the commission this week, show that F.B.I. officials were alarmed throughout 2001 by what they perceived as Mr. Ashcroft's lack of interest in terrorism issues and his decision in August 2001 to reject the bureau's request for a large expansion of its counterterrorism programs.

The draft reports, they said, quote the F.B.I.'s former counterterrorism chief, Dale Watson, as saying he "fell off my chair" when he learned that Mr. Ashcroft had failed to list combating terrorism as one of the department's priorities in a March 2001 department-wide memo.

The Justice Department has launched an aggressive campaign to persuade the commission to rewrite sections of the report that are unflattering to Ashcroft. Whether or not that happens, word is out about Ashcroft's inattentiveness, and his defense (amounting to "nobody ever told me that terrorism might be a domestic problem") will be a hard sell when he testifies before the commission.

Via NPR, here's what's on tap for today at the 9/11 Commission hearings:

On Tuesday, April 13 and Wednesday April 14, the 9-11 Commission (the National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States) will hold public hearings. The Commission will hear from current and former top-level officials from our nation's law enforcement and intelligence communities. Attorney General John Ashcroft, Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III will testify before the Commission, as well as former Attorney General Janet Reno, former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh and former Acting FBI Director Thomas J. Pickard. NPR's Frank Stasio will anchor our coverage which will originate live from the Hart Office building in the Capitol complex. The hearings are expected begin at 8 a.m. CT. Additional information can be found at the Commission's website .

We'll be in court for the morning and unable to tune in, so here's an open thread to discuss the hearings.

With Ashcroft set to testify tomorrow before the 9/11 commission, American Progress has compiled the original internal FBI and DOJ documents that show how he de-emphasized terrorism and cut funding. You can access them here. Over at Salon, Progress Reporter Judd Legum has a list of ten questions the Commission should put to Ashcroft.

The new issue of Newsweek says this week's 9/11 commission hearings at which Attorney General John Ashcroft, Janet Reno and FBI director Robert Mueller will testify, may get very heated. The issue: Was Ashcroft "asleep at the wheel"?:

....at the top, the FBI leadership was more concerned with squabbling with its supposed bosses in the Justice Department. Or so it may seem this week when top officials from the bureau and Justice testify before the 9/11 commission. ...

To the G-men, Ashcroft seemed at once overbearing and naive. Informed of the FBI investigation into Al Qaeda after taking office in March, Ashcroft asked, "Why don't we go out and arrest these guys?" Not enough evidence, was the answer. Then Ashcroft seemed to lose interest in the terrorism issue, some bureau officials say. His predecessor, Janet Reno, demanded to be regularly briefed on the status of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act cases on terror suspects. Ashcroft told Justice lawyers he did not need to hear daily reports. "It's like a soap opera," Ashcroft said at one meeting, according to a former Justice official. "You can tune in once a week and catch up with what's been going on." (An Ashcroft aide denies that the A.G. made such a comment.)

This week's 9/11 Commission hearings will feature John Ashcroft. He's expected to be asked some tough questions, particularly because he cut the FBI's requested counterterrorism budget before Sept. 11.

Last week, Sept. 11 commission member Jamie Gorelick asserted that there had been no evidence of heightened anti-terrorism efforts in Ashcroft's office after the president received a classified memo from the CIA on Aug. 6, 2001, entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." In an earlier session, commission member Richard Ben-Veniste remarked, "Ironically, on September 10th, 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft axed $58 million from the FBI's counterterrorism budget."

Janet Reno and FBI Director Robert Mueller will also testify. The main question, according to Zoe Baird, is:

How are we going to use our law enforcement and intelligence capabilities to tell us what terrorists are going to do and when they are going to it? It is the key to protecting the nation."

We hope the answer isn't going to be to create a new domestic CIA-type agency, like Britain's MI-5:

The left-leaning Center for National Security Studies in Washington is among the civil liberties advocacy groups fearful of a domestic spy agency. "We do not think it will be possible to construct rules that force such an agency to focus on the truly dangerous individuals who may be in the United States and not use their resources to put vast numbers of innocent Americans at risk," said Kate Martin, director of the center.

By TChris

As TalkLeft noted yesterday, most Americans think the Bush administration is hiding information about its knowledge of terrorist threats prior to 9/11. It seems those suspicions are well founded.

The daily intelligence briefing delivered to U.S. President George W. Bush a month before the September 11 attacks warns of various scenarios of al Qaeda's intentions to strike inside the United States, sources confirm to CNN.

Condoleezza Rice testified that the briefing contained only historical information, not a warning of future attacks (notwithstanding its title: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US.") But that's not quite true. One highlight of the briefing:

An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating al Qaeda was attempting to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives.

That sounds a bit like a warning of a future attack. In any event, the briefing's historical information would have given a sharp-minded President fair warning that his administration needed to give bin Laden a high priority.

The classified briefing delivered to President Bush five weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks featured information about ongoing al Qaeda activities within the United States, including signs of a terror support network, indications of hijacking preparations and plans for domestic attacks using explosives ...

Update: Here is the declassified text of the briefing.

President Bush has released the now famous August 6, 2001 memo relating to Osama's plan to attack the U.S.

.... the document said the FBI had detected "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

The Post says the memo could be viewed as contradicting Condi Rice:

"The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives," the document said.

Update: Here's the text of the actual document (pdf). Here it is in html. [hat tip Poppy]

The New York Times reports Saturday that Bush was briefed at his ranch in August, 2001 about a planned Osama attack in the U.S. :

President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday. The warning came in a secret briefing that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, 2001. A report by a joint Congressional committee last year alluded to a "closely held intelligence report" that month about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda, and the official confirmed an account by The Associated Press on Friday saying that the report was in fact part of the president's briefing in Crawford.

The disclosure appears to contradict the White House's repeated assertions that the briefing the president received about the Qaeda threat was "historical" in nature and that the White House had little reason to suspect a Qaeda attack within American borders.

Update: Rittenhouse Review has a wrap-up of editorial reviews on Condi's testimony.

by TChris

Forced by public criticism to flip-flop its position about Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 commission, the Bush administration allowed her to testify, no doubt hoping that Rice would reassure the public that the administration did everything right and has nothing to hide. If that was the plan, it didn't work. According to a CBS poll:

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice’s public testimony at the Sept. 11 Commission hearings may have improved her own image with the public, but most Americans still believe that the Bush administration could have done more to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks, was not paying enough attention to the issue before Sept. 11 and is still hiding something about what they knew.