The Case Against the Attacks on Bush’s Case for War

National Journal

Lots of smart people think that invading Iraq over the objection of, say, France would be a huge mistake. I can’t be confident that they are wrong, because the most important question-whether we will be in greater danger if we invade than if we don’t-turns on inherently speculative and debatable calculations and prognostications.

Spying on Terrorists: Will the FBI Ever Be up to the Job?

National Journal

Among the signals that should have alerted the FBI well before September 11, 2001, that Islamic terrorists might be thinking of crashing airplanes into American buildings was the 1996 confession of a captured Pakistani terrorist named Abdul Hakim Murad. He and others had planned to blow up 12 U.S.-owned airliners over the Pacific Ocean-and he had taken flying lessons in the U.S. to prepare to crash a plane into CIA headquarters. The planned suicide flight was not included in the criminal charges against Murad, apparently because it had not ripened into a provable conspiracy. But surely a crack counter-terrorism agency would have gone on the lookout for any signs of similar plots by other jihadists.

What did the FBI do? It "effectively forgot all about it," asserted Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, who was the Senate Select Intelligence Committee’s senior Republican for the past six years, in an impressive 84-page brief last month calling for "radical reform" of the intelligence community. "Convinced that the only information that really matters was information directly related to the criminal investigation at hand, the FBI thus ignored this early warning sign that terrorists had begun planning to crash aircraft into symbols of U.S. power. Thus, rather than being stored [and] assessed and re-assessed in light of a much broader universe of information about terrorist plans and intentions over time, the Murad data-point. … slipped out of the FBI’s usable institutional memory." So it was that in the summer of 2001, it never crossed anyone’s mind at the FBI to see the accumulating evidence of possible Qaeda plans to crash planes into buildings as part of a pattern dating back for years.

Cheney’s Win Over the GAO Threatens Congressional Oversight

National Journal

At a time when presidential power is expanding inexorably to deal with unprecedented terrorist threats, aggressive congressional oversight is an essential check against abuse. And at a time when both the House and the Senate are controlled by the president’s party-and unlikely to push him hard for information-the role of Congress’s investigative and auditing arm, the General Accounting Office, is especially vital.

Big Brother and Another Overblown Privacy Scare

National Journal

Editorial writers and other guardians of privacy have had a field day with the reports that former Reagan National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter has come back as a cross between Dr. Strangelove and Big Brother. Poindexter is watching you, or soon will be, his detractors suggest, as they lovingly detail his 1990 convictions (later reversed on appeal) for his lies to Congress about the Iran-Contra affair. The Web site for Poindexter’s "Total Information Awareness" program at the Pentagon foolishly fans such fears, featuring the slogan "Scientia Est Potentia"-Knowledge Is Power-complete with an ominous, all-seeing eye atop a pyramid.

Spying By the Government Can Save Your Life

National Journal

One [FBI] agent, frustrated at encountering the "wall" [separating intelligence officials from criminal investigators], wrote to headquarters [on Aug. 29, 2001]: "Someday someone will die and-wall or not-the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain `problems.’ The biggest threat to us now, UBL [Osama bin Laden], is getting the most `protection.’ "-Opinion of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, November 18, 2002

Is There Freedom to Associate With Terrorists?

National Journal

There is, actually. Even the Bush Justice Department says so, explaining in a recent legal brief that people who sympathize with foreign terrorist groups are free to "meet with their members and advocate their causes"-which in many cases include peaceful political and humanitarian activities as well as mass murder. The First Amendment guarantees you a right to visit terrorists, speak with them, worship with them, have lunch with them, defend their methods, or sign up as a member of their group.

How Flawed Laws Help Terrorists and Serial Killers

National Journal

During a conversation on August 27, 2001, … [an agent in the FBI’s Minneapolis office told an FBI headquarters official that] he was trying to make sure that Moussaoui "did not take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center." The Minneapolis agent said that the headquarters agent told him, "… You don’t have enough to show he is a terrorist." – Eleanor Hill, staff director of the joint committee investigating intelligence failures, in testimony on September 24, 2002

The Hawks Are Scary, the Doves More Dangerous

National Journal

The Bush administration’s hard-line hawks, led by Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and their top aides, exude an imperial bellicosity and a hubristic disdain for international law and opinion that could end up undermining our national security. The risk is that they will commit us to a succession of go-it-alone wars-not only in Iraq but also in Iran, North Korea, perhaps Libya, possibly Pakistan (if militant Islamists take power) and elsewhere-that would destroy our relations with Europe, isolate us even from Britain, inflame the Islamic world, and spawn legions of new terrorists.

But Did They Break The Law?

Newsweek

Yes, some of them have told the FBI that they were there. But at least one says he went only to see what the camp was about–and tried to leave as fast as he could. So how much of a case do prosecutors really have against the six Buffalo-area men arrested for allegedly receiving training at an Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan?The biggest legal hurdle facing the authorities–who believe that the young men were part of a Qaeda sleeper cell in Lackawanna, N.Y.–is a two-year-old ruling that a critica

Yes, some of them have told the FBI that they were there. But at least one says he went only to see what the camp was about–and tried to leave as fast as he could. So how much of a case do prosecutors really have against the six Buffalo-area men arrested for allegedly receiving training at an Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan?

The biggest legal hurdle facing the authorities–who believe that the young men were part of a Qaeda sleeper cell in Lackawanna, N.Y.–is a two-year-old ruling that a critical part of the 1996 antiterrorism law under which they have been charged is unconstitutionally vague. That was the view of a federal appeals court in an unrelated California case.

Another likely defense: a freedom-of-association claim echoing those raised by communist defendants back in the 1950s. The issue then was whether people could be prosecuted for being members of–or associating with–the U.S. Communist Party without proof of specific intent to further its illegal goal of violent revolution. The issue now is whether people can be prosecuted for providing "material support" to a foreign terrorist group without proof of specific intent to further its illegal terrorist activities.