Posted on Jul 22, 2015
Do you think that the NSA really didn't know about the Al Qaeda operatives inside the United States in 2000 and 2001?
3.59K
6
8
2
2
0
=================================================
The NSA knew about Mihdhar’s connection to bin Laden and had earlier linked his name with the operations center. Had they known he was now reaching out to bin Laden’s switchboard from a U.S. number, on the day an al Qaeda-linked assassination plot was planned, the agency could have legally obtained an order to tap the San Diego phone line. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, in fact, approves eavesdropping on suspected terrorists and spies in the United States. By monitoring Mihdhar’s domestic calls, the agency certainly would have discovered links to the 9/11 hijackers living on the East Coast, including Mohamed Atta.
It’s likely, in other words, that 9/11 would have been stopped in its tracks...
When [Thomas Drake, a member of the NSA’s Senior Executive Service] heard Hayden’s denial that the NSA had the technical capability to determine that Mihdhar was calling from San Diego, he completely disagreed. “Not true. That’s an absolute lie,” he said. “Every number that comes into that switchboard, if you’re cast-iron coverage on that switchboard, you know exactly what that number is and where it comes from.… You know exactly—otherwise it can’t get there.”
=================================================
If this article is technically accurate, then what excuse could the NSA have for not sounding an alarm and alerting the FBI about the al Quaeda connection in San Diego more than a year before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
What do you think should be done if this turns out to be true? Who should be held responsible for the neglect? Who should be held responsible for the cover-up?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/21/missed-calls-nsa-terrorism-osama-bin-laden-mihdhar/
The NSA knew about Mihdhar’s connection to bin Laden and had earlier linked his name with the operations center. Had they known he was now reaching out to bin Laden’s switchboard from a U.S. number, on the day an al Qaeda-linked assassination plot was planned, the agency could have legally obtained an order to tap the San Diego phone line. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, in fact, approves eavesdropping on suspected terrorists and spies in the United States. By monitoring Mihdhar’s domestic calls, the agency certainly would have discovered links to the 9/11 hijackers living on the East Coast, including Mohamed Atta.
It’s likely, in other words, that 9/11 would have been stopped in its tracks...
When [Thomas Drake, a member of the NSA’s Senior Executive Service] heard Hayden’s denial that the NSA had the technical capability to determine that Mihdhar was calling from San Diego, he completely disagreed. “Not true. That’s an absolute lie,” he said. “Every number that comes into that switchboard, if you’re cast-iron coverage on that switchboard, you know exactly what that number is and where it comes from.… You know exactly—otherwise it can’t get there.”
=================================================
If this article is technically accurate, then what excuse could the NSA have for not sounding an alarm and alerting the FBI about the al Quaeda connection in San Diego more than a year before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
What do you think should be done if this turns out to be true? Who should be held responsible for the neglect? Who should be held responsible for the cover-up?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/21/missed-calls-nsa-terrorism-osama-bin-laden-mihdhar/
9/11
Al Qaeda
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
The key phrase in the article you cite is "Had they known he was now reaching out to bin Laden’s switchboard from a U.S. number, on the day an al Qaeda-linked assassination plot was planned, the agency could have legally obtained an order to tap the San Diego phone line." That's a big "IF."
First, you can trust very little of what Thomas Drake says. Second, What GEN Hayden meant was he didn't have the legal authority to use all the technical means he had available to him at the time to ensure he could follow Mindhar on U.S. soil. That's a large part of what the USA PATRIOT Act was about. Drake simply wasn't capable of placing the situation along with the legal restrictions in place at the time.
I can assure you no one at NSA knew about this and failed to follow up on it. Our analysts were (and are) very smart, talented people who spend their lives often tracking one target or group, and they know them inside out. They would never let something like this slip through their fingers if it were that simple. I know - You can check my resume if you like.
First, you can trust very little of what Thomas Drake says. Second, What GEN Hayden meant was he didn't have the legal authority to use all the technical means he had available to him at the time to ensure he could follow Mindhar on U.S. soil. That's a large part of what the USA PATRIOT Act was about. Drake simply wasn't capable of placing the situation along with the legal restrictions in place at the time.
I can assure you no one at NSA knew about this and failed to follow up on it. Our analysts were (and are) very smart, talented people who spend their lives often tracking one target or group, and they know them inside out. They would never let something like this slip through their fingers if it were that simple. I know - You can check my resume if you like.
(1)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
SGM (Join to see), I'll readily grant that your resume looks impressive, but what do you find so untrustworthy about Mr. Drake?
Also, I don't see where any of the allegations about the NSA's technical ability to monitor the communications in question would have involved violating any laws then in effect, as the mere existence of a number inside the U.S. having repeated communications with a known Al Quaeda communications cell would have been enough on its own to justify a domestic investigation by the FBI based solely upon the known end-points of the calls.
Also, I don't see where any of the allegations about the NSA's technical ability to monitor the communications in question would have involved violating any laws then in effect, as the mere existence of a number inside the U.S. having repeated communications with a known Al Quaeda communications cell would have been enough on its own to justify a domestic investigation by the FBI based solely upon the known end-points of the calls.
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
To answer your first question, I knew Drake from personal interactions with him at work. For the rest, I have to be careful about what I can say here. Yes, the information about him calling "bin Laden's switchboard" would have been enough for the FBI to open an investigation AND for NSA to have obtained a FISA warrant to monitor whatever phone number was used, but again only "had they (NSA) known." What I can't discuss are the technical capabilities of discovering that information from monitoring "bin Laden's switchboard." That's what Hayden was referring to. I misspoke in my first post, thinking about something else with the legal aspects.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Would of, could of, should of. It's to late for any of that now. The thing we have to do now is to make sure it can't happen again.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google