Rowley Criticized Over Moussaoui Probe

Eugene

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-19-06 09:38 AM
Original message

Rowley Criticized Over Moussaoui Probe

Rowley Criticized Over Moussaoui Probe

Monday June 19, 2006 3:16 PM

By MATTHEW BARAKAT

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The former FBI whistle-blower who urged the agency to probe
terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks
was criticized Monday in a government report for her own role in the case.

Coleen Rowley, a former lawyer in the FBI's Minneapolis field office who is now
running for Congress, received both praise and criticism in the report prepared
by the Justice Department's inspector general.

The report credits Rowley overall for blowing the whistle on mistakes at FBI
headquarters in its failure to aggressively investigate Moussaoui. "Her
complaints resulted in an important reassessment of how the FBI handled this
matter," it said.

But the report faults Rowley for failing to pursue investigative avenues, such as
a traditional criminal search warrant. Her focus instead was on obtaining a search
warrant from a special intelligence court that operates in secret.

<snip>

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5896704,00.html

Article continues with Coleen Rowley's response.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

peacetalksforall

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-19-06 10:06 AM
Response to Original message

1. Is this just hindsight for political purposes?

The legal or administrative subtlety is a little too vague for me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Rose Siding

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-19-06 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #1

3. She had enough experience to know that the evidence didn't

meet the standard for a criminal warrent. She didn't waste her time or our money on futile pursuits. They're saying that even though her supervisors (erroneously) didn't think the info met the lower standards of the secret court, she should have gone through the motions in criminal court. It's absurdly similar to Karl's "use their strength against them" tactic.

``At the outset, she assumed that (the U.S. Attorney's Office) would not support a criminal warrant,'' the report states. ``Contrary to the implication in her letter, which placed the blame for failing to seek a warrant solely on FBI headquarters, she advised the field agents not to seek a criminal warrant.''
...
Rowley maintained that, in a pre-9/11 environment, prosecutors demanded an exceedingly high standard before they would ask a judge for a warrant.

``I will stand by that to the day I die,'' Rowley said.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

xchrom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jun-19-06 10:20 AM
Response to Original message

2. how ironic -- the one who points out the

fucked up situation -- is now critisized officially?

i'd love to have the background on the authors of this report.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Old and In the Way

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-20-06 01:38 AM
Response to Original message

4. Policy is set from the top, down.

When they start questioning this administration's role in stuffing the intel and the field agents who tried to stop the terrorists, let me know. Rowley's getting negative attention because she's running for office as a Democrat.

What about Frasca? He gets a promotion for stopping Rowley's investigation into Moussaoui's case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LittleWoman

(217 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-20-06 03:45 AM
Response to Original message

5. Swiftboating alert!

Coleen Rowley is running for Congress in Minnesota. Needless to say she is running as a Democrat. Nuff said.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

krkaufman

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-20-06 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. Exactly. This is a political attack against Rowley. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JI7

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Jun-20-06 04:02 AM
Response to Original message

6. what a stupid fucking title

she did the right thing where it really mattered, but focus on some minor error she might have made.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue May 07th 2024, 07:00 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.