Would NSA Surveillance Have Stopped 9/11 Plot? - Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst

[WillyT]

Would NSA surveillance have stopped 9/11 plot?
By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst
updated 10:19 AM EST, Mon December 30, 2013

<snip>

(CNN) -- The Obama administration has framed its defense of the controversial bulk collection of all American phone records as necessary to prevent a future 9/11.

During a House Intelligence Committee hearing on June 18, NSA director Gen. Keith Alexander said, "Let me start by saying that I would much rather be here today debating this point than trying to explain how we failed to prevent another 9/11."

This closely mirrors talking points by the National Security Agency about how to defend the program.

In the talking points, NSA officials are encouraged to use "sound bites that resonate," specifically, "I much prefer to be here today explain these programs, than explaining another 9/11 event that we were not able to prevent."

On Friday in New York, Judge William H. Pauley III ruled that NSA's bulk collection of American telephone records is lawful. He cited Alexander's testimony and quoted him saying, "We couldn't connect the dots because we didn't have the dots."

But is it really the case that the U.S. intelligence community didn't have the dots in the lead up to 9/11? Hardly. In fact, the intelligence community provided repeated strategic warning in the summer of 9/11...

<snip>

More: http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/30/opinion/bergen-nsa-surveillance-september-11/

[Pholus]

1. Yes, but actual intelligence work doesn't have nice milestones like data collection.

How can you justify your budget if not by showing the fraction of your country's private communications you have recorded for some reason other than Terra...

[Autumn]

2. Well if a memo given to the president warning that an attack was coming

didn't work why would anything else work? I'm gonna go with a big fucking No.

[kelliekat44]

3. "Would it have?" Don't you mean "Did it?" nt

[frylock]

4. and, no, it didn't

[WillyT]

5. I Was Confused By That Question...

[johnnyreb]

6. Mindy Kleinburg: "the 9/11 terrorists were not just lucky once..

They were lucky over and over again."


9/11 widow, testimony to commission. (I'm on a tiny screen it's a history Commons link.)

[noise]

7. Rehashing the back and forth between

the executive branch and the intelligence community does nothing to clarify the pre-9/11 failures. The question is obvious--why were al Qaeda investigations involving known al Qaeda operatives in the US obstructed at time when we are told "the system was blinking red?" This basic question has never been answered. Instead a cloak of secrecy has prevented the public from getting a real explanation. I read Bergen's book Manhunt. In his book he refers to the failure as inexplicable. On another occasion he called it a bureaucratic failure. Now he calls it a policy failure. What does that even mean? A policy failure? Will we ever reach a day when a journalist dares to get a real explanation as to why the CIA sat on crucial intelligence at the same time they were giving the White House dire briefings about a possible major terrorist attack?

[Jesus Malverde]

8. "Able Danger", did detect it, was ignored...nt

[woo me with science]

9. K&R

[spanone]

10. the 'dots' were ignored by condi and the bu$h administration.

[indepat]

11. And Congressman Dan Issa has had a year-long hissy-fit over the bogus intelligence failure in re

Benghazi, but nary a Republican seems to care a whit about the inexplicable failure to thwart the 9-11 attacks, at least in part. Inquiring minds want an answer.