Intelligence community warns Senate committee of increased terror threats

By | February 5, 2010, 5:09am PST

Summary: Thursday’s hearing before the Select Committee on Intelligence brings to light very different views held by its members on Miranda warning policies and should such warnings be offered to a terrorist suspect. The committee also heard how terrorist are falling off the grid.

Thursday’s hearing before the Select Committee on Intelligence brings to light very different views held by its members on Miranda warning policies and should such warnings be offered to terrorist suspects. The committee also heard how terrorists are falling off the grid.

The first question asked by Chairman Sen. (D) Dianne Feinstein set the tone:

“Is a terrorist attack against the United States likely in the next 3 to 6 months?”

All 5 witnesses — Adm. Blair (DNI), Dir. Panetta (CIA), Lt. Gen Burges (MI), Dir. Mueller (FBI) and acting Assist Secretary of INR Dinger — testified yes.

Vice Chair Sen. (R) Kit Bond’s opening statement suggested Miranda warnings should not have been given to terrorist suspects (enemy combatants), enabling investigators to aggressively interrogate suspects. On the day of the attempted Christmas Day bombing on Northwest Flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, was interrogated by an FBI team about other potential threats.

Bond then asked what protocol was followed and who made the decision to give the Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights. Director Mueller responded that the FBI consulted with the Justice Department after briefing them on the day’s events, upon which Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys recommended that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should be given his Miranda warning.

Sen. Bond criticized that decision, believing that because the FBI Director allowed his team to lead the investigation instead of the Director of National Intelligence, who could have recommended that a military commission team interrogate Abdulmutallab, then not only would a Miranda warning have been unnecessary, but additional and very valuable intelligence information could have been gained.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) then blasted Director Mueller for allowing its investigators to give Abdulmutallab his Miranda warning, asking why was there such a (time line) rush. Director Mueller responding that time (24 hour window) was important and was influenced by concern that any information gathered without a Miranda warning would jeopardize a successful conviction before a federal court. This brought follow up questions by Sen. Bond wondering why DOJ procedures and policies were followed instead of a Enemy Combatant / Military Commission procedures, suggesting that if they had been used, a Miranda warning would not have been required.

Sen. Bond suggested that there is flexibility in determining how a terrorist suspect is prosecuted and asked why the Intelligence Directors were not coordinating such options.

Director of National Intelligence Adm. Blair suggested that not all suspects should or would be put through a military commission or military justice protocol and policy. Both Blair and Mueller believe each terrorist event requires a case by case analysis before a decision on which avenue should be taken and followed.

On Dec. 25, information and other data were collected while Abdulmutallab was in surgery from his burn injuries. He was interviewed once prior to his surgery. Information from watch lists and other reports finally connected all the dots and, after his surgery, the investigators had further questions; but by that time Abdulmutallab was given his Miranda warning, given access to a lawyer and the FBI temporarily ceased questioning him.

In the hearing, Director Mueller was asked if they have questioned Abdulmutallab since Dec. 25  and testified that investigators have and collected high value intelligence information with his lawyer in attendance. It is still not clear from the hearing if high value intelligence was collected during the first interrogation or afterwards.

Perhaps the most chilling testimony was CIA Director Panetta’s. In his opening remarks, Panetta stated that what keeps him up at night is the “lone wolf” individual who has loose ties with a terrorist organization, is young, easy to impress, has a clean record, and is almost impossible to track or collect information about.  The Al-Qaeda network is changing tactics and moving to other countries in smaller numbers.

Because lone wolf individuals and small groups don’t leave any trail that can found or followed, technology and information assets inside the FBI, CIA and NSA and others become useless. Even when such terrorists do use technology like anonymous email, prepaid phones, and (as was stated by Sen. Jay Rockefeller) pay cash for everything, it could be a daunting if not an impossible task to determine what their next target is. Funding human intelligence assets will be a higher priority than developing or buying more technology. Sen. Rockefeller suggested ideas to help find lone wolf terrorists, with procedures that are already being used by airlines — such as collecting telephone numbers and other pieces of identity. Rockefeller was clearly frustrated hearing Panetta’s concern, realizing that it is very easy to fly under the radar and fall off the grid.

Resources used for this post:

C-SPAN Coverageof House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (2 Hr’s, 26 min. long)

Admiral Blair’s written submission for Senate Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Witnesses before the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence were:

Director of National Intelligence Admiral Dennis C Blair

Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Robert Mueller

Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Leon Panetta

Director of Military Intelligence Lt. General Ronald Burgess

Acting Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Research (State Dept) John Dinger

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

Doug Hanchard

http://government.zdnet.com/?page_id=5774

Biography

Doug Hanchard

Doug is the principal of Rapid Response Consulting, an advisory group that integrates ICT solutions. He has worked at some of the largest telecommunications firms in Canada, including Bell Canada, Telus and AT&T and is a guest lecturer for several universities and associations. He serves on several advisory boards in Canada and the United States.

Starting with a new national ISP in 1993 in sales, positioning internet access, web sites and network services began the path of telecommunications technologies from the early Bulletin Board Services (BBS) to the first web pages for commercial clients.

Became the National Data Network Service Manager for Frame Relay and Internet access for AccTel Enterprises which was acquired (after 3 mergers already) by AT&T Canada. Interested in how marketing could expand service availability, he moved to Telus to become the Frame Relay / ATM Product Manager and expanded the network across Canada. In 2002 he went to Bell Canada becoming a Solution Architect to get back to his passion for technology working with enterprise clients. In 2006, became the Director of R&D and Senior Solution Architect for Bell Canada Security Solutions Inc, developing I.P. based physical and logical security platforms and ICT services.

This position created new commercial concepts such as Crisis and Disaster technology solutions required for emergency use after an event occurred. He designed interoperable technologies and application combinations allowing any to any I.P. service through landline, broadband, satellite and wireless technologies to be deployed anywhere

14
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

*BARK* !!!
doug.hanchard@... 5th Feb 2010
Who ever said that a Senate Committee ever makes sense ? The 5 witnesses testified before an important Senate hearing and stated clearly what the U.S. is faced with.

But what the Senators wanted to focus on was Miranda rights. And what suprised and made an impression on me was thinking;

"How did that happen? There's a serious threat, but let's do Monday quarterbacking and find someone to leach about who in the DOJ ordered that the suspect was given his Miranda warning..."

So in a 'sense' I agree with you - it doesn't make (any) sense, but hey, get the U.S. Senate to start making sense then maybe your heart rate make go back to normal.

Sound sensible? happy
is more justice and equality in the world.
0 Votes
+ -
@Doug--All it takes: One compromised PC
D.T.Schmitz Updated - 5th Feb 2010
Just one PC is all it takes for the n'er do wells of the world to use a an anonymous jump point onto the Internet to conduct their surreptitious activities.

The other day, I thought I gave some reasonable suggestions on how to 'tweak' the Internet, Doug. They were deleted by the Mods. Here is one of them, saved to pdf from pdfmyURL.com.

(Yes, I am "The Linux Advocate".)

If there was any 'dissent' in my comments directed toward Microsoft it would not be without good reason.

The world is now filled with bot compromised PCs all of which run on Microsoft Windows. And the 'terrorists' can execute many of their plans, communication, etc. all below the radar, with impunity.

If PCs were configured to sandbox the vulnerable apps, then the likelihood of machines becoming compromised would be vastly reduced.

I wonder, how many Senators are using PCs that are compromised?
Anybody?
0 Votes
+ -
You are right again!!
Ron Bergundy 5th Feb 2010
Whoever heard of a hacked Linux system??

Anybody???

There you have it!!!
0 Votes
+ -
It applies to all O/Ses. I use one in Linux: AppArmor.
0 Votes
+ -
Come again?
Ron Bergundy Updated - 5th Feb 2010
"Mike Cox"??? I don't get it?
Failure to Control the fbi/cia terrorists is the real issue facing the world.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/11/382350.shtml?discuss


http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part16-updatefor.html


http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/tooth14.html


http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/hightechassau.html


http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part4-worldinabo.html




Thank you kindly.

geral sosbee
gsosbee@gmail.com
P.O. Box 3374
Harlingen, Texas 78551
(956)371-5210
0 Votes
+ -
Hey look! Even nutcases post here!
Ron Bergundy 5th Feb 2010
Wow, this guy is whacked BIG TIME!!!
0 Votes
+ -
You're the nutcase
nikacat 5th Feb 2010
Because you can't quite grasp the fact that the greatest threat to our freedom, security, and general well being is our own government.
At some point, someone has to recognize that a
government can only make its citizens "mostly
safe". That the resources expended to try and improve
on that level of safety would have saved many many
more lives if they were directed towards education,
health, income security, the environment, etc etc.

Imagine if a billion dollars were removed from the DHS
budget and redirected solely towards improving infant
health and reducing infant mortality in US. How many
more people would die from terrorist attacks vs how
many more children would be able to have full, happy,
and healthy lives.

As many have noted, Americans like to have their
"wars" - actual ones and sexy PR ones (War on Drugs,
War on Obesity, War on this and that). Why isn't there
a 'War on Premature Infant Deaths"? Perhaps you just
can't make saving infants sexy?
At some point we need to understand that American hackers are heroes, and give them medals. Over the past 30 years they have tested and hardened the entire global infrastructure. And yet we punish them. THAT is stupid AND insane.
What lies and deceptive BS from this arrogant and murderous EMPIRE that controls our country!!.

The ?Christmas Bomber? was ALLOWED into the US precisely by 'our own' US intelligence services, regardless of the possibility that he would kill US passengers!

Why isn't the Post, NYT, Globe and other MSM reporting this truth:

This was a spooky ploy, and NO media other than WSWS is saying boo about the truth behind the facade.

"A January 27 hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security established that US intelligence agencies stopped the State Department from revoking the US visa of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The Nigerian student, whom US officials suspected of being affiliated with the Yemeni terrorist group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, attempted to set off a bomb on Northwest Flight 253 into Detroit on Christmas Day. Revocation of Abdulmutallab?s visa would have prevented him from boarding the airplane."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/f253-f03.shtml

The MSM should be ashamed of not reporting this.

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine


"The revelation that US intelligence agencies made a deliberate decision to allow Abdulmutallab to board the commercial flight, without any special airport screening, has been buried in the media. As of this writing, nearly a week after the hearing, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have published no articles on the subject. Nor have the broadcast or cable media reported on it."

"Under questioning by the committee chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, Kennedy [State Dept Under Sect.] explained why the State Department might not revoke the US visa of a suspected terrorist: ?We will revoke the visa of any individual who is a threat to the United States, but we do take one preliminary step. We ask our law enforcement and intelligence community partners, ?Do you have eyes on this person and do you want us to let this person proceed under your surveillance so that you may potentially break a larger plot???

He added: ?And one of the members [of the intelligence community]?and we?d be glad to give you that out of [open session]?in private?said, ?Please, do not revoke this visa. We have eyes on this person. We are following this person who has the visa for the purpose of trying to roll up an entire network, not just stop one person.??
0 Votes
+ -
Did you even bother to watch that hearing?
doug.hanchard@... 5th Feb 2010
Thank you for submitting your response. Did you check the references you site in your post? I decided to do so, investing two hours worth of my time, only to discover, your talk back post is full of holes and inaccurate.

I watched this committee hearing you reference, which is available here:

http://homeland.house.gov/Hearings/index.asp?ID=234

You reference in your talk back:
Item 1

"A January 27 hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security established that US intelligence agencies stopped the State Department from revoking the US visa of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The Nigerian student, whom US officials suspected of being affiliated with the Yemeni terrorist group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, attempted to set off a bomb on Northwest Flight 253 into Detroit on Christmas Day. Revocation of Abdulmutallab?s visa would have prevented him from boarding the airplane."


The above statement is not true. I listened to the entire January 27th Hearing and at no time is the above paragraph accurate.

Item 2 - your Reference Item #2

"Under questioning by the committee chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, Kennedy [State Dept Under Sect.] explained why the State Department might not revoke the US visa of a suspected terrorist: ?We will revoke the visa of any individual who is a threat to the United States, but we do take one preliminary step. We ask our law enforcement and intelligence community partners, ?Do you have eyes on this person and do you want us to let this person proceed under your surveillance so that you may potentially break a larger plot???

He added: ?And one of the members [of the intelligence community]?and we?d be glad to give you that out of [open session]?in private?said, ?Please, do not revoke this visa. We have eyes on this person. We are following this person who has the visa for the purpose of trying to roll up an entire network, not just stop one person.??


Again, review of the hearing, here's what the context of the answer given above.

Chairman Thompson asked (at approximately the 35 minute mark) " If the exact same scenario occurred again , would his Visa been revoked."

The answer given was NOT in reference to the attempting Terrorist attack of Dec. 25th.

Please watch the hearing for yourself to make up your own mind.

I will say, these hearings are more often than not, opportunities to take partisan pot shots at each other rather than asking questions of the witnesses. Each member of the committee is allowed 5 Minutes, yet it seems they spend 4 minutes of that to spew pot shots and their own 'ideas' and Monday quarterbacking tune.

I often wonder how anything gets answered without confusion. You're talk back might be exhibit A.

thanks for writing.
Doug
Darned if that article makes absolutely no sense. Woof!
0 Votes
+ -
*BARK* !!!
doug.hanchard@... 5th Feb 2010
Who ever said that a Senate Committee ever makes sense ? The 5 witnesses testified before an important Senate hearing and stated clearly what the U.S. is faced with.

But what the Senators wanted to focus on was Miranda rights. And what suprised and made an impression on me was thinking;

"How did that happen? There's a serious threat, but let's do Monday quarterbacking and find someone to leach about who in the DOJ ordered that the suspect was given his Miranda warning..."

So in a 'sense' I agree with you - it doesn't make (any) sense, but hey, get the U.S. Senate to start making sense then maybe your heart rate make go back to normal.

Sound sensible? happy

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix