Jun 19 2006

Coleen Rowley, Exaggerator?

Published by at 4:27 pm under All General Discussions,Bin Laden/GWOT

It seems agent Coleen Rowley, who blamed FBI HQ in DC for misteps in the Moussaoui case, is a bit of an exaggerator when it comes to laying blame and doing the classic bureacratic CYA move:

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.


But the report faults Rowley for failing to pursue other 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.

“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.”

Seems Ms. Rowley had obvious and accessible avenues to pursue Moussaoui if she felt it was so important to stop this man and check his computer.

6 responses so far

6 Responses to “Coleen Rowley, Exaggerator?”

  1. wickedpinto says:

    I always associate “whistle blower” as something that came out of the railroad golden age. You toot whistles to warn of things that might be hazzardous on the rail, to prepare the passengers and engineers and the rest of the individuals on the train of something that is happing.

    Apparently the only reference I can find on the online references is to law enforcement. I assume the origin would be to the bobbies and coppers armed with loud whistles to call others to a scene, (basicaly the same thing, but I like the railroad one more, specially since there have been railroads longer than there have metropolitan police)

    Anyways, the point is, you blow the whistle while something is happening, and you address it. A Whistleblower says “no” “yes” “stop” “OH! CRAP!” “DUCK!”

    they don’t dissemble while simultaneously claiming “Duck!”

    “Duck! but make sure that you are fully covered in the interim, mind you this might not be the best course of action, but we will address that as it goes, I leave myself open to suggestions could you please guide me as to if you think we should duck, or jump? I can’t verify at this moment.

    Thank You Very Much:
    Coleen Rowley”

    Not whistleblowing, CYA as you say. (coleen did not actually author that quote.)

  2. Rob says:

    The failure to fully exploit the Massaui computer should be examined and exposed fully. This is where the beaurocratic tendency to do nothing cost us almost 3000 lives in New York. This is a weakness of beaurocracy and a particular weakness of our anti-terrorist responce prior to 9/11. It was institutionalized in “the wall”
    the pious separation of intelligence information from those who had the responsibility to do something about the terrorists (the FBI).

  3. MerryJ1 says:

    Rowley’s complaint started out as a letter to Mueller, who was really a “newbie” when 9/11 hit. He hadn’t yet had much time to determine, let alone implement changes from Freeh’s tenure. I think Freeh resigned in June, with Mueller’s appointment not confirmed until at least August?

    At any rate, the prosecutor (or SAC, or whoever) did refuse to request a FISA warrant with an understandable if un-verbalized reason: His predecessor had been thoroughly reamed out by the head FISA Court judge, followed by that judge whistling Janet Reno in for a tongue-lashing which included a prohibition on that prosecutor ever again submitting a warrant request. The episode destroyed the man’s career.

    I don’t know whether Rowley is an opportunist who had congressional aspirations in mind when she wrote the letter (I do know that the DCCC (Rahm Emanuel) has recruited congressional candidates who tend to outwardly resemble “Republican types” — he’s mentoring one for the IL 6th District, being vacated by Henry Hyde, a female Iraq War veteran who lost both legs when her helicoptor was shot down; other races also have a number of Dems-who-look-like-Repubs-but-sound-like-Michael-Moore), but I do know that a good part of the blame for pre-9/11 problems belongs squarely at the doorstep of the FISA Court.

    Post-9/11 problems, too, for that matter.

  4. sbd says:

    Rowley told the OIG that when Henry. came: to her office around August 22, he asked her what she thought about the FISA issue in the Moussaoui case. He related that he had spoken to either Martin or Don (Rowley did not recall which one) who had suggested that the Minneapolis FBI would have a better chance of obtaining a warrant if it sought a FiSA as opposed to a crimina! Search warrant. She said she thought Henry may have mentioned something about the “smell test.” She said that after discussing the matter with Henry, like the RFU she recommended going the FISA route because of the “smell test.”

    Rowley explained that she knew that if a FISA warrant was sought after an unsuccessful attempt to obtain, a criminal warrant, it would give the appearance, or “smell”- that the purpose for seeking the FISA was for criminal prosecution and the FISA warrant would be denied.


  5. MerryJ1 says:

    SBD’s comment squares with what I recall, although I don’t remember — if I ever knew — who Henry, Martin or Don were.

    This is probably a dumb one, but I also don’t know or can’t remember what an “RFU” is.

  6. pull says:

    It isn’t about “rights”, it is about protecting Islamists, in my book, for the Left. People like this Crowley lady would slam the hammer down on someone she felt was good for the country… and let the ones she felt was bad for it go free. The whole “we care about rights” is just a guise of godliness for eighty percent of the “liberals” out there.