FBI Chief: 9/11 Surveillance Taxing Bureau

Washington Post ^ | Thursday, June 6, 2002 | a Washington Post Staff Writer

[angkor]

The FBI has placed a "substantial" number of people suspected of ties to terror under constant surveillance, sending out special teams of agents to various parts of the United States roughly every two weeks in a mission that is seriously taxing the agency's resources, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III said yesterday.

[angkor]

Mueller has the law at his disposal. Time to use it.

Also, note that this page 1 WP article is bylined "a Washington Post Staff Writer." That's the first time I've ever seen an anonymous byline in the Post.

[syriacus]

That's the first time I've ever seen an anonymous byline in the Post.

Interesting observation.

The FBI's job might be easier if they could focus their investigation on people from particular backgrounds. As a foreign-accented caller to C-Span's Washington Journal pointed out this morning, the government should not use "racist" profiling, but using "racial" profiling makes sense.

[Dialup Llama]

(I think the Post writers are protesting something.)

Mueller wants you to think his hands are tied so that when he ends up achieving no result, you at least will think he really tried. To do something will mean offending special interests the way Ashcroft has.

Aliens have no right to be here and can be shown the door if its in our interests. Use the law. Not the law against us, (that BS patriot act) but our immigration laws.

Mueller, Tenet and Ziglar are not really up to the task. Clearly the B team when compared to Rummy, Cheney, Condi and Powell.

[angkor]

You're correct. Just looked and discovered it's a "byline strike" by the newspaper union (the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild).

As for the rest, Tenant, Ziglar, et al are being constrained by one and only one factor: the failure of their boss to give them both the command and the mandate to operate sensibly and decisively in the face of asymmetrical warfare.

Note that the most inept and ineffectual responses to terrorism are coming from the domestic leaders you cite (I would of course add Mineta and Ridge). Their public admissions of complete and total paralysis are beyond astonishing.

Now compare that to those who seem to have a sense of certainty with their missions: Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, others. Note that they are are all focused on international, and not domestic, priorities.

What is clear is that the overseas mission is somewhat defined and crystallized, while the domestic mission - which is actually the more important to the security of the United States - is locked into a paralysis of thought and action. Someone has clearly not come to grips with the decisions that must be made to protect America's domestic security.

And that person is George W Bush, who consistently fails to acknowledge that this is as much a domestic war as an overseas operation. Reading between the lines, its clear that the domestic leaders are not being provided with orders, or mandates, or a mission that makes any sense. They know of the threat, but they haven't been given the ability to act. Thus, paralysis.

I lay this entirely on the doorstep of GWB, although I would venture that much of the WH dithering comes from Carl Rove and/or others (Grover Norquist!?!) who are focused on elections and not security.

GWB had better wake up and start addressing domestic terrorism in 2002, and not the elections of November 2004