Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obstruction in terror investigations?
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Thursday, November 15, 2001 | Jon Dougherty

Posted on 11/16/2001 1:14:55 PM PST by JohnHuang2

WND Exclusive
DAY OF INFAMY 2001
Obstruction in terror investigations?
FBI agent alleges feds stopped probes that may have prevented 9-11


By Jon Dougherty
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

An active agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation has filed a complaint with a public-interest law firm alleging that Justice Department and FBI supervisory personnel have either mishandled or interfered with anti-terrorism investigations in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

According to officials with Judicial Watch, a Washington, D.C.-based firm that investigates alleged government corruption, the special agent – who asked not to be identified – claims he was retaliated against when he continued to push for and pursue certain terrorist investigations over the objections of his FBI and Justice Department supervisors.

The agent alleges that had certain investigations been allowed to run their courses, wanted Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network may have been prevented from carrying out the Sept. 11 attacks that have left nearly 5,000 people dead.

"Judicial Watch is requesting a full scale, independent investigation into its client's concerns and seeks to hold accountable those responsible for preventing the full investigation of terrorist activity here in the United States and abroad," said a statement released by the organization yesterday.

The agent filed his complaint last week with the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility, said a statement issued by Judicial Watch.

A source close to the investigation, who asked not to be identified, told WND that the investigations the agent referenced were ongoing, having begun before the Sept. 11 attacks.

The agent claimed "the FBI could have stopped bin Laden years ago," according to the legal group's statement.

A spokesman for the Justice Department told WorldNetDaily he had no information regarding the complaint. Also, a spokesman for the FBI's office of public affairs said he was unaware of the allegations. Saying his office doesn't discuss ongoing investigations, a staff member in the Office of Inspector General refused to comment.

The Office of Professional Responsibility is responsible for investigating allegations that Department of Justice attorneys have engaged in misconduct in connection with their duties to investigate, represent the government in litigation or provide legal advice. Also, the agency has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct by law-enforcement personnel "when such allegations are related to allegations of attorney misconduct within the jurisdiction of OPR." The agency reports directly to the attorney general.

Judicial Watch is representing the agent along with attorney David Schippers, who gained notoriety as the lawyer who lead the impeachment against President Clinton in the House of Representatives. A spokeswoman in his Colorado office said he was out of town and could not be reached for comment.

Currently, Schippers is also representing former NBC affiliate television news reporter Jayna Davis, who says she has evidence linking Middle Eastern terrorists to the Oklahoma City bombing.

Tom Fitton, executive director of Judicial Watch, said he believed the gravity of the complaint ought to bring about a quick response by the Justice Department.

"Presumably the attorney general would want to investigate this immediately," he said.

Fitton declined to identify which terror investigations had been tampered with and whether or not supervisory personnel identified by the special agent were holdovers from the Clinton administration.



TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
Quote of the Day by Faraday
1 posted on 11/16/2001 1:14:55 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
All this, and Stephanopoulos referring to the "bomb" on TWA800- Bill Clinton, here's your legacy- and soon everybody will know it. You can run, but you can't hide!
2 posted on 11/16/2001 1:14:58 PM PST by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2; stands2reason
It will be interesting to see how the Bush Administration reacts to this. W has consistently taken a "we don't want to dredge up any old sh*t" approach to governmental accountability, so I'm pretty sure nothing will be different this time.
3 posted on 11/16/2001 1:15:03 PM PST by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: ratcat
thanks for this and all the other related pings. This whole 911 incident more and more is starting to smell like OKC, TWA800, and the like.
7 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:27 PM PST by Free Vulcan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ratcat
When Ashcroft appointed Michael Chertoff to head the Criminal Division of DOJ, I was thrilled because I'd seen him in action on C-SPAN during the Whitewater Hearings. If D'Amato hadn't sat on him over and over and just plain shut him down part of the time, Chertoff would have made those hearings real instead of the sham they were.

One time he even used quotes from depositions in Terry Reed's case against Buddy Young et al, but the squawking started and good 'ole Al decided it would be inappropriate to discuss it.

Now I don't know if Criminal Div. would have any jurisdiction on National Security matters, but obstruction of justice is certainly a crime. I'd like to see the FBI agent or Schippers or Klayman approach Chertoff directly (or quietly and personally). Maybe he'd just be shut down again, but I have to figure that Ashcroft appointed him with some idea of who he was and what he knows. He was the Majority Counsel at WW hearings--he knows about the crimes of the Clintons and their cohorts, including Mena. I may be very wrong, but I would expect him to be the opposite of cover up Muller. Especially post 911.

8 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:29 PM PST by Sal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ratcat; JohnHuang2
Thanks for the heads up and post.
9 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:29 PM PST by OKCSubmariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OKCSubmariner
You're more than welcome, friend. And thanks for your always interesting and informative posts.
10 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:29 PM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Wallaby; Uncle Bill; Nancie Drew; Fred Mertz; rwz; roughrider; AtticusX; Atticus318...
BTTT
11 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:29 PM PST by OKCSubmariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OKCSubmariner
Another BUMP...
12 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:30 PM PST by slym
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ratcat
Nothing will come of this unless some serious credibility is injected into the investigation. We all know that mistakes were made by everyone invoved. The question is if they were subversive or criminal mistakes. Klayman cannot do this on his own.
13 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:50 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ravinson
If that happens it'a a darn shame. This should be a tool to help prevent future acts, not an exercise to protect those involved. What's more imortant?
14 posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:10 PM PST by Wrigley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ratcat
And thanks for the ping.
15 posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:10 PM PST by Wrigley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
--"mistakes were made", well, heck ya! ya got to wonder when credible clues and evidence by the bucketful were ignored repeatedly. Once, ok, bound to happen. Twice-well, maybe, but 5,689 times?

Say this was private business, some midlevel folks keep pointing out to higher-ups that a competitor had such and such an advantage, a new product whatever, but the company higher ups never responded to the information. In the real world (read private) that company would have already gone through a major shakeup, high level company officers would have been bounced. In governmentworld, they just get reassigned someplace else, and any of the information can just keep being ignored, and we have zero way of really forcing them to do anything. Zero, they face zero credible threat of force to make them do their jobs honestly. I'll repeat, zero way. When you have government workers who can tell congress to get stuffed, when they are allowed to just cite "national security-ongoing investigation" as a mumbled catch-all get out of jail free card, this is what happens. There's no enforcement arm in congress is the big deal here. Justice and the executive branch control the guns! They control the guns, they got the firepower, they got the ability actually force their reality on everyone else, or at least exists in some sort of armed neutrality with each other, but both of those gangs take turns beating up on and ripping off the legislative branch, who after all these years just rolls over on it's back, closes it's eyes, and takes it, repeatedly. Institutionalised serial gang rape by two branches over the real peoples branch of government, and who is getting raped secretly loves it.

Honest, this is the major problem. Instead of all three branches having some sort of credible ability to actually force their rights as enumerated under the constitution, only two of the branches have firepower. I think this is one of the main reasons that the two branches with the guns can keep "getting away with" what they do.

Here's a for instance, say the klintoon gang was actually convicted of some gross serious crimes, and in involved 100 of them, from the top levels down and sideways. Anyone think they would have gone willingly to the pokey, or do you think they would have used their "authority" to order the guns under their control to "follow orders" to "obey the commander in chief", and to destroy the accusers and to stay out of the pokey? My guess is choice two, because we are infested with sieg heilers who just plain will not ever say "no" to an illegal order. Way, way, way too many folks under the commander/dictator in chief will follow any order no matter what it is, only a tiny percentile will ever say "no" to anything in their entire "careers". It just "is" is all. Human nature. They won't do it, at best we get this much less than 1% of these federal employees of whatever description *might* testify if they can be protected somehow, the rest-scaredy cats, it ain't happening, the coverups continue because personal job and personal security and personal paycheck and personal pension is always number one priority.

This is the "someone has got to do something about this" mindset, most americans, badged or not, officially armed or not, governmental workers in general just will not EVER, for any reason, say "no, this is wrong" and then follow through with what needs to be done. Everyone is afraid of reprisals, because reprisals are used, it's reality. Every person I know personally who has been in past governmental service-any description of service there- or who is currently employed is aware of tons of abuse that has gone on in their particular little sub section of government, they will talk about it "off the record", and it still goes on, constantly, because they are MORE afraid of personal reprisals than of doing what is right. I have heard this forever. They have reason to be afraid,too, people get destroyed in various ways, all the way from economically only to getting whacked.

One of the major reasons is that the "peoples representatives"-the various federal and state legislative branches- have NO police force or military protectors. Only the perpetual executive and co-opted executive/judiciary bureaucracy have official armed police and military who are "authorised" to threaten and intimidate, for any reason whatsoever..

And that is reality two, the job of the military and police is to physically threaten and intimidate people into doing what they are told-"or else". That's two branches of government(really only one now), the same two branches we have very little official contact with beyond electing one or two goofs occassionaly. "Our" branch of government-the rank and files branch-is designed to be 'talkers", that's IT, talk, only talk,they have zero threat capability compared to the other two branches. So, the other two branches walk all over them, and it won't change until that is changed.

The 'armed people" was supposed to make up for that design lack in credible threat potential, but that has evaporated as well, from the seig heilers in the other two branches very open and willingness to kill you. And that's it, they threaten to kill you if you don't follow their orders, they will willingly kill any of their own members, so they sure as heck would kill anyone else, even when it's apparent the orders are illegal. There is no credible threat potential for our defense against abuse by those two branches., or we would have had mass saying "no" long before this.

Pick any subject, the miller second amendment decision by the semi "supreme' court, the sneaking in of the wage tax, the seizure of the real money in favor of private bankers instant credit fiat money, or any single time the executive branch ordered so much as one soldier with one rifle to go to war someplace without a congressional declaration of war-any of those things constituted an illegal coup by a faction in government and should have been instantly put down with extreme prejudice, it should have sparked a counter-coup revolt and didn't. "They" were able to pull it off and keep pulling it off because 99.9999% of people will follow any orders given to them. this alleged peoples "Congress" should have ordered a re-taking back of power from any one of those heinous abuses and usurpations and prostitutions of authority, any of the states should have ordered their militia out to say "no" to any of those illegal acts, but it didn't happen. And when it didn't happen, the illegal coup plotters who seized power in that manner became the "legal" government, and it continues to this day. The legislative branch is slam fulla quisling chikken order followers as well, their pompous utterings are just that.

And the same organizational structure is set up in the 50 states, so the abuses happen there, too, from past lack of gonads mostly, now it's become "law" and acceptable. The abuses are "law" and "what is done" now, it's the norm, government-by-abuse and threats. We live under a plain old fashioned military junta, too many junta supporters, most people are junta supporters, hardly anyone will say it outloud because it will show their own personal involvement in it, and our congress has turned into scaredy cat rubber stamp wielders. They maintain this little theater presentation of 'the separation of powers' and yada, yada, but that is PURE fantasyland. And it is so accepted by most people that it continues, mostly from the fact the majority of the people-no matter what they say outloud-are way more content to be slaves in a fascist system than to be independent.

It's just human nature, you can see it in any societal structure or government or nation you might want to point to, it's always the outcome. People will always accept ever-increasing degrees of slavery if it means increasing their perceived comfort level and reducing their own personal risk simultaneously, saying "no" is not an acceptable option. Talking about it is ok-for now, and only in the vaguest terms, subject to poofing at any second now- but the lines in the sand that should have resulted in action were crossed generations ago, and zero action happened to counter it. Instead of rejecting it, it has become enthusiastically embraced. Any practical counter-actions are not likely to happen now, either, no matter the next abuse, or the abuse after that, and no matter any amount of public outraged stutterings to the contrary.

"Sieg Heil" is the accepted format, anything else is not.

"Sieg Heiling" in governmental service is considered patriotism now, saying "no" once in awhile when it's necessary and warranted is avoided at any cost. "sieg heiling" in non-governmental private life is accepted, because to do other gets you killed. People not in governmental employ know full well you NEVER say no, because they will kill you, most willingly. It is "illegal" in any sort of practical terms to say "no" and not very popular, either, for that matter. You are either "with" the sieg heilers all the way, or you get squashed, or threated with squashing, and that's it, that's really the only two choices available. Even so called 'civil disobedience" is an oxymoron, if the junta-structure as it stands now really thought you were any sort of credible threat to them of insisiting on not getting abused, instead of taking any abuse they order to happen, they will kill you. Everyone knows it, it just is. it's easy to point to some other country, wonder outloud why such and such a citizenry goes along with some bozo dictator and his little sub dictators-say iraq, it don't matter, any example, and we 'wonder why they put up with it. BUT, when it's "anyone-you" put into the position of "putting up with it", well, the shoe is on the other foot then, it becomes real and scary, it's not comfort level-maintaining theoretical anymore, so it happens, it gets "put up with".

16 posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:10 PM PST by zog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The Senate will stop any real investigations and Bush is protecting Clinton..
17 posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:11 PM PST by mbb bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zog
I see you have a opinion on this subject. (smiling broadly) I can't find anything at all to disagree about. You are correct in your assertions about a imbalance in the so called balance of power and the sheeple actions of both public and private employees. In fact, I would venture to guess that you have more than just a passing interest in this subject and most likely have suffered under it's retaliatory attitude against people who bring the truth to light, as I have. Great post!
18 posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:35 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: zog
The Representatives could de-fund them. No paychecks? No "Yes-Men".

I crack me up sometimes...

19 posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:50 PM PST by packrat01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tex-oma; philman_36; Ada Coddington
Bet you'll find #16 interesting.
20 posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:54 PM PST by LSJohn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson