DOCSLIB.ORG

The Attorney General

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Attorney General Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 356 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 1 of 155 Laurence F. Pulgram (CSB No. 115163) 1 [email protected] Candace Morey (CSB No. 233081) 2 [email protected] FENWICK & WEST LLP 3 555 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 4 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 5 6 Ann Brick (CSB No. 65296) [email protected] 7 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 8 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 9 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 Facsimile: (4150 255-8437 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs in 11 Dennis P. Riordan, et al. Vincent I. Parrett (CSB No. 237563) [email protected] 12 Barry R. Himmelstein (CSB No. 157736) MOTLEY RICE LLC [email protected] 28 Bridgeside Boulevard 13 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP P. O. Box 1792 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 14 San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Telephone: 415-956-1000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9440 15 Facsimile: 415-956-1008 Interim Class Counsel for 16 Interim Class Counsel for MCI Class Verizon Class 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 20 IN RE: MDL No. 06-1791 VRW 21 NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND 22 LITIGATION, SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES FOR THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR, IN THE 23 This Document Relates To: ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY THE UNITED STATES 24 (1) All Class Actions Against MCI and OF AMERICA AND VERIZON Verizon Defendants in the Master MCI and 25 Verizon Consolidated Complaint, Dkt. 125; Date: August 30, 2007 (2) Bready v. Verizon Maryland (06-6313); Time: 2:00 p.m. 26 (3) Chulsky v. Cellco Partnership & Verizon Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor Communications Inc. (06-6570); and Judge: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker 27 (4) Riordan v. Verizon Communications Inc. (06-3574) 28 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES MDL NO. 06-1791 VRW Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 356 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 2 of 155 1 Jennifer L. Kelly (CSB No. 193416) Elizabeth Cabraser (CSB No. 83151) [email protected] [email protected] 2 Aaron K. Perzanowski (CSB No. 244921) Eric B. Fastiff (CSB No. 182260) [email protected] [email protected] 3 FENWICK & WEST LLP Allison Elgart (CSB No. 241901) 555 California Street, 12th Floor [email protected] 4 San Francisco, CA 94104 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & Telephone: (415) 875-2300 BERNSTEIN, LLP 5 Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 6 Peter J. Eliasberg (CSB No. 189110) Telephone: 415-956-1000 [email protected] Facsimile: 415-956-1008 (fax) 7 Peter Bibring (CSB No. 223981) [email protected] Interim Class Counsel for MCI Class 8 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN Joshua Graeme Whitaker 9 CALIFORNIA (Appearing pursuant to MDL Rule 1.4 [U.S. 1616 Beverly Boulevard Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Md. Bar No. 16457]) 10 Los Angeles, CA 90026 [email protected] Telephone: (213) 977-9500 Edward Nelson Griffin 11 Facsimile: (213) 250-3919 (Appearing pursuant to MDL Rule 1.4 [U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Md. Bar No. 16435]) 12 Nicole A. Ozer (CSB No. 228643) [email protected] [email protected] GRIFFIN WHITAKER LLP 13 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 8730 Georgia Avenue Suite LL100 FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN Silver Spring, MD 20910 14 CALIFORNIA Telephone: (301) 587-3345 39 Drumm Street Facsimile: (888) 367-0383 15 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 16 Facsimile: (4150 255-8437 17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs in Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dennis P. Riordan, et al. Christopher Bready, et al. 18 19 Ronald L. Motley David H. Sternlieb [email protected] [email protected] 20 Jodi W. Flowers Gary S. Shapiro [email protected] [email protected] 21 Don Migliori (Appearing pursuant to MDL Rule 1.4) (U.S. [email protected] Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of N.J.) 22 Justin B. Kaplan SHAPIRO & STERNLIEB, LLC [email protected] Attorneys At Law 23 MOTLEY RICE LLC 800 Tennent Road 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Manalapan, New Jersey 07726 24 P. O. Box 1792 Telephone: (732) 617-8050 Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 Facsimile: (732) 617-8060 25 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9440 26 Interim Class Counsel for Counsel for 27 Verizon Class Plaintiffs Glen Chulsky, et al. 28 PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES MDL NO. 06-1791 VRW Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 356 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 3 of 155 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Plaintiffs have requested leave to submit this Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice 3 and Supplemental Authorities for the limited purpose of addressing new factual and legal 4 developments after the filing of Plaintiffs’ Joint Opposition to the Government’s Motion to 5 Dismiss (“Opposition”) on June 22, 2007. As this Court predicted in Hepting v. AT&T Corp., 6 439 F. Supp. 2d 974, 1001 (N.D. Cal. 2006), active and ongoing Congressional investigations 7 have spurred additional revelations concerning the programs at issue in this litigation. The Sixth 8 and D.C. Circuits have issued important decisions, which the United States and Verizon have 9 addressed in their reply papers, but Plaintiffs have not previously had the opportunity to address. 10 I. ADDITIONAL FACTUAL DEVELOPMENTS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL NOTICE. 11 Public statements offered by the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence 12 (“DNI”), and a ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence have confirmed 13 the existence of additional surveillance activities conducted by the National Security Agency 14 beyond the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program (“TSP”), as well as the participation of 15 telecommunications operators in those activities. Plaintiffs request that this Court take judicial 16 notice of these public statements, all of which further undermine the Government’s assertion that 17 the state secrets privilege mandates dismissal of this litigation at the outset.1 18 According to the Government, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because “no public facts 19 1 Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, facts “not subject to reasonable dispute in that” they are 20 “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned” are judicially noticeable. Fed. Rule Evid. 201(b). When such notice is 21 “requested by a party and [the court is] supplied with the necessary information,” it is mandatory. Fed. Rule Evid. 201(d). 22 The facts recounted here, because they are public statements made by the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and a 23 ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, are “not subject to reasonable dispute.” Each of these facts is easily verifiable on the basis of the attached public documents 24 created by or reflecting the statements of those officials. See Exhibits A-D. Many courts have taken judicial notice of similar information. See, e.g., Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Pottorff, 291 U.S. 25 245, 254 n. 4, 78 L. Ed. 777, 54 S. Ct. 416 (1933), amended on other grounds, 291 U.S. 649, 54 S. Ct. 525 (1934) (official reports put forth by the Comptroller of the Currency); Heliotrope Gen., 26 Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 981 (9th Cir. 1999) (information contained in news articles); Del Puerto Water Dist. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 271 F.Supp.2d 1224, 27 1234 (E.D. Cal. 2003) (Senate and House Reports); Wietschner v. Monterey Pasta Co., 294 F.Supp.2d 1102, 1108 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (press releases issued by the Securities and Exchange 28 Commission). PLAINTIFFS’ JOINT OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS -1- MDL NO. 06-1791 VRW Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 356 Filed 08/20/2007 Page 4 of 155 1 provide any basis to conclude that … the Government could not accomplish the alleged 2 surveillance on its own,” Gov’t Opening Brief at 32. However, recent disclosures by the 3 Attorney General and Ranking Member Pete Hoekstra now confirm the participation of 4 telecommunications companies in the NSA’s surveillance activities. 5 On July 24, 2007, testifying under oath before Congress on the Department of Justice’s 6 proposal to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales 7 stated as follows: 8 [SENATOR] FEINGOLD: You state in your testimony that the 9 administration has transmitted to Congress a proposal to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And yet your department 10 still refuses to share with this committee and with the Intelligence Committee basic information about the evolution of the 11 department's legal justifications for the illegal wiretapping program from 2001 to the present. 12 And your legislative proposal contains a provision that would grant 13 blanket immunity to individuals who cooperate with the government for participating in certain unidentified intelligence 14 activities. How can you come to Congress with a straight face and ask for this 15 immunity provision, yet at the same time refuse to tell most members of Congress what they would be granting immunity for? 16 [ATTORNEY GENERAL] GONZALES: Well, of course, we 17 have provided briefings to the Intel Committees. And, again, we don't think -- you know, we went to companies for 18 help. They provided help in trying to protect this country. And we think that's appropriate for the Congress to consider. 19 20 Exhibit A, at 50 (emphasis added). 21 Two weeks later, Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House 22 Select Committee on Intelligence and a member of the so-called “Gang of Eight,” confirmed that 23 telecommunications carriers were the “companies” that assisted in these surveillance activities 24 and for whom legislative immunity was being sought.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Doj Inspector General Michael Horowitz Was Handpicked by the “Espionage Machine Part…
    12/20/2017 Americans for Innovation: DOJ INSPECTOR GENERAL MICHAEL HOROWITZ WAS HANDPICKED BY THE “ESPIONAGE MACHINE PART… More Next Blog» Create Blog Sign In SEARCH by topic, keyword or phrase. Type in Custom Search box e.g. "IBM Eclipse Foundation" or "racketeering" Custom Search Saturday, December 16, 2017 DEEP STATE Member SHADOW DOJ INSPECTOR GENERAL MICHAEL HOROWITZ GOVERNMENT WAS HANDPICKED BY THE “ESPIONAGE MACHINE POSTER Harvard | Yale | Stanford Sycophants PARTY” RUN BY SOROS & ROGUE SPIES FOR AN Updated Dec. 12, 2017. UNELECTED CORPORATE COMBINE CLICK HERE TO SEE COMBINED TIMELINE OF THE INCREDIBLE BACKSTORY: HIJACKING OF THE INTERNET HOROWITZ HAS BEEN GROOMED BY GEORGE SOROS VIA DNC BARNEY PAY-to-PLA Y NEW W ORLD ORDER FRANK, THE CLINTONS AND JAMES CHANDLER SINCE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL This timeline shows how insiders sell access & manipulate politicians, police, intelligence, HOROWITZ & CLINTON ROAMED THE PLANET USING SPEECHES TO ORGANIZE judges and media to keep their secrets Clintons, Obamas, Summers were paid in cash for THE “ESPIONAGE MACHINE PARTY” TAKEOVER OF THE USA outlandish speaking fees and Foundation donations. Sycophant judges, politicians, academics, bureaucrats and media were fed tips to mutual funds tied to insider HE COACHED LEGAL & CORPORATE CRONIES HOW TO SKIRT U.S. stocks like Facebook. Risk of public exposure, SENTENCING & ETHICS LAWS blackmail, pedophilia, “snuff parties” (ritual child sexual abuse and murder) and Satanism have ensured silence among pay-to-play beneficiaries. The U.S. Patent Office CONTRIBUTING WRITERS | OPINION | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION | DEC. 17, 2017 UPDATED DEC. 20, 2017 | is their toy box from which to steal new ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Suspect Until Proven Guilty, a Problematization of State Dossier Systems Via Two Case Studies: the United States and China
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations Fall 2009 Suspect Until Proven Guilty, a Problematization of State Dossier Systems via Two Case Studies: The United States and China Kenneth N. Farrall University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Asian Studies Commons, Communication Technology and New Media Commons, International and Intercultural Communication Commons, and the Social Influence and oliticalP Communication Commons Recommended Citation Farrall, Kenneth N., "Suspect Until Proven Guilty, a Problematization of State Dossier Systems via Two Case Studies: The United States and China" (2009). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 51. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/51 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/51 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Suspect Until Proven Guilty, a Problematization of State Dossier Systems via Two Case Studies: The United States and China Abstract This dissertation problematizes the "state dossier system" (SDS): the production and accumulation of personal information on citizen subjects exceeding the reasonable bounds of risk management. SDS - comprising interconnecting subsystems of records and identification - damage individual autonomy and self-determination, impacting not only human rights, but also the viability of the social system. The research, a hybrid of case-study and cross-national comparison, was guided in part by a theoretical model of four primary SDS driving forces: technology, political economy, law and public sentiment. Data sources included government documents, academic texts, investigative journalism, NGO reports and industry white papers. The primary analytical instrument was the juxtaposition of two individual cases: the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation Hearing
    FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JULY 26, 2007 Serial No. 110–86 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 37–010 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:11 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 H:\WORK\FULL\072607\37010.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah ROBERT WEXLER, Florida RIC KELLER, Florida LINDA T. SA´ NCHEZ, California DARRELL ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MIKE PENCE, Indiana HANK JOHNSON, Georgia J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia BETTY SUTTON, Ohio STEVE KING, Iowa LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
    [Show full text]
  • Part Ii: Proof Columbia University Helped British Saboteurs and American Traitors Ta…
    6/14/2021 Americans for Innovation: PART II: PROOF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HELPED BRITISH SABOTEURS AND AMERICAN TRAITORS TA… More Create Blog Sign In To ensure you are reading the latest post, click the logo above. SEARCH by topic, keyword or phrase. Type in Custom Search box e.g. "IBM Eclipse Foundation" or "racketeering" Friday, June 11, 2021 SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE (SES) PART II: PROOF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HELPED HIJACKED THE INTERNET BRITISH SABOTEURS AND AMERICAN TRAITORS Michael McKibben EXPOS… TAKEOVER AMERICA IN 1902 CONTRIBUTING WRITERS | OPINION | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION | JUN. 11, 2021, UPDATED JUN. 14, 2021 | PDF | https://tinyurl.com/kp4ncycs Click here to download a raw *.mp4 version of this video DEEP STATE Member SHADOW GOVERNMENT POSTER Available by request only, email request to: [email protected] Harvard | Yale | Stanford | Oxbridge (Cambridge, Oxford) | Sycophants LEGEND: Some corruptocrat photos in this blog contain Fig. 1—Rothschild-protégé banker J.P. Morgan became a trustee of Columbia University a stylized Christian Celtic Wheel Cross in the while William J. Donovan (1903-1907) was being groomed by numerous founders of the background alongside the text British Pilgrims Society. By 1912, had purchased editorial control of all of America's "Corruption Central" meaning we major newspapers and in 1913 drove the formation of the Federal Reserve to be have put the person's conduct under the microscope and controlled by British banks aligned with the Pilgirms Society where Lord Rothchild was a discovered that he or she is at the co-founder with J.P. Morgan. L/R: William J. "Wild Bill" Donovan, J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Internal Effects of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
    REDACTED AND UNCLASSIFIED The Internal Effects of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Reprioritization U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Audit Division Audit Report 04-39 September 2004 REDACTED AND UNCLASSIFIED REDACTED AND UNCLASSIFIED THE INTERNAL EFFECTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION’S REPRIORITIZATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY * In direct response to the September 11, 2001 (9/11), terrorist attacks, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) initiated a transformation that, among other things, established a new ranking of priorities and formally shifted a significant number of agents from traditional criminal investigative work to counterterrorism and counterintelligence matters. According to the Director, each of the changes was designed to reshape the FBI into an organization better able to combat the imminent threat of terrorism and to prevent another large-scale terrorist attack against the United States. Prior to 9/11, the FBI utilized more of its field agent resources to investigate traditional criminal activity than to investigate matters related to terrorism. According to the FBI, since the reprioritization it is striving to incorporate more proactive, intelligence-based tactics and operations into its procedures, particularly in terrorism-related matters. Non-terrorism related crime, however, still occurs, and because the FBI has the broadest jurisdiction of any federal law enforcement agency, it is expected to maintain a response capability for violations of federal criminal law. However, other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies may be capable of taking on increased responsibilities for certain investigative areas in light of the FBI’s reprioritization. In order for this transition to occur effectively, the specific areas from which the FBI has reduced its involvement must be identified.
    [Show full text]
  • Retroactively Classified Documents, the First Amendment, and the Power to Make Secrets out of the Public Record
    ARTICLE DO YOU HAVE TO KEEP THE GOVERNMENT’S SECRETS? RETROACTIVELY CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND THE POWER TO MAKE SECRETS OUT OF THE PUBLIC RECORD JONATHAN ABEL† INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1038 I. RETROACTIVE CLASSIFICATION IN PRACTICE AND THEORY ... 1042 A. Examples of Retroactive Classification .......................................... 1043 B. The History of Retroactive Classification ....................................... 1048 C. The Rules Governing Retroactive Classification ............................. 1052 1. Retroactive Reclassification ............................................... 1053 2. Retroactive “Original” Classification ................................. 1056 3. Retroactive Classification of Inadvertently Declassified Documents .................................................... 1058 II. CAN I BE PROSECUTED FOR DISOBEYING RETROACTIVE CLASSIFICATION? ............................................ 1059 A. Classified Documents ................................................................. 1059 1. Why an Espionage Act Prosecution Would Fail ................. 1061 2. Why an Espionage Act Prosecution Would Succeed ........... 1063 3. What to Make of the Debate ............................................. 1066 B. Retroactively Classified Documents ...............................................1067 1. Are the Threats of Prosecution Real? ................................. 1067 2. Source/Distributor Divide ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • F:\...\04 D Vladeck Wp9 M
    Litigating National Security Cases in the Aftermath of 9/11 David C. Vladeck* The treacherous terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, and the aftershocks that are still being felt years later, have had a profound effect on the legal landscape in the United States. In 9/11’s immediate aftermath, Congress, in a rare and fleeting moment of bi- partisanship, gave the President far-reaching authority to combat terrorism. Among other measures, Congress authorized the President to use military force against the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them,1 enacted the USA PATRIOT Act to give the President unprecedented law enforcement and detention authority over suspected terrorists and those believed to be providing material support to terrorists,2 placed entire categories of unclassified, previously accessible, government-held information off-limits to the public,3 and, by creating the Department of Homeland Security, reorganized the Executive Branch to consolidate and better coordinate our nation’s security agencies.4 The President has used this authority to undertake massive and ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, to detain indefinitely and without criminal charges hundreds of foreign nationals and even American citizens,5 to step up counter-terrorism * Director of the Institute of Public Representation and Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. This article draws mainly on my experience as a litigator, not as an academic. Prior to joining the full-time faculty at Georgetown in 2002, I spent more than twenty-five years at the Public Citizen Litigation Group, first as a staff attorney and then as director.
    [Show full text]
  • The FBI: Protecting the Homeland in the 21St Century
    EMBARGOED until 10 a.m., March 25, 2015 UNCLASSIFIED (U) The FBI: Protecting the Homeland in the 21st Century (U) Report of the Congressionally-directed (U) 9/11 Review Commission To (U) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation By (U) Commissioners Bruce Hoffman Edwin Meese III Timothy J. Roemer EMBARGOED(U) March 2015 EMBARGOED until 10 a.m., March 25, 2015 UNCLASSIFIED EMBARGOED until 10 a.m., March 25, 2015 UNCLASSIFIED EMBARGOED 1 EMBARGOED until 10 a.m., March 25, 2015 UNCLASSIFIED EMBARGOED until 10 a.m., March 25, 2015 UNCLASSIFIED (U) TABLE OF CONTENTS (U) Introduction: The 9/11 Review Commission…..……….………........ p. 3 (U) Chapter I: Baseline: The FBI Today…………………………….. p. 15 (U) Chapter II: The Sum of Five Cases………………….……………. p. 38 (U) Chapter III: Anticipating New Threats and Missions…………....... p. 53 (U) Chapter IV: Collaboration and Information Sharing………………. p. 73 (U) Chapter V: New Information Related to the 9/11 Attacks………… p. 100 (U) Key Findings and Recommendations…………………………………. p. 108 (U) Conclusion: ………………………………………………………… p. 118 (U) Appendix A: Briefs Provided by FBI Headquarters Divisions.…..… p. 119 (U) Appendix B: Interviews Conducted……… ………………………. p. 121 (U) Appendix C: Select FBI Intelligence Program Developments…….… p. 122 (U) Appendix D: Acronyms……………… …………………………… p. 124 EMBARGOED 2 EMBARGOED until 10 a.m., March 25, 2015 UNCLASSIFIED EMBARGOED until 10 a.m., March 25, 2015 UNCLASSIFIED (U) INTRODUCTION THE FBI 9/11 REVIEW COMMISSION (U) The FBI 9/11 Review Commission was established in January 2014 pursuant to a congressional mandate.1 The United States Congress directed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, or the “Bureau”) to create a commission with the expertise and scope to conduct a “comprehensive external review of the implementation of the recommendations related to the FBI that were proposed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (commonly known as the 9/11 Commission).”2 The Review Commission was tasked specifically to report on: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • News Coverage Over the Allegations of a National Security Whistleblower
    The Ethical Resister’s Last Resort: News Coverage over the Allegations of a National Security Whistleblower ______________________________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Graduate School At the University of Missouri-Columbia __________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Sociology _____________________________________________ by Ryan Amundson Dr. Clarence Lo, Thesis Supervisor May 2009 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled THE ETHICAL RESISTER’S LAST RESORT: NEWS COVERAGE OVER THE ALLEGATIONS OF A NATIONAL SECURITY WHISTLEBLOWER presented by Ryan Amundson, a candidate for the degree of master of arts, and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Professor Clarence Lo Professor Victoria Johnson Professor Charles Davis ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank all the members of my thesis committee, Dr. Clarence Lo, Dr. Victoria Johnson, and Dr. Charles Davis for all of their help. Their comments and criticisms pushed me to go beyond my own lazy thinking. They were also very understanding of the busy life of a graduate student and tolerant of a thesis running over a hundred pages. Even after receiving drafts at the last minute, all of them still managed to read carefully and offer detailed advice that helped me make my thesis into something worthwhile. I want to thank Dr. Clarence Lo especially for the many hours we spent throughout the last couple of years discussing my thesis and all the support and encouragement he provided. Putting together a thesis is not an individual job, and I am grateful to all those among the faculty and graduate students at the University of Missouri-Columbia who helped me along the way.
    [Show full text]
  • Nine Years of War Based on A
    Exposing the hard truth about 9/11 is the only Justice demands accountability. Nine Years of War way to end the war and bring our troops home. To our fellow concerned citizens: For the sake of the 9/11 Evidence shows that the 9/11 attacks could not have occurred victims and their families and for the safety, freedom and without high-level complicity from rogue elements within honor of every American, learn the truth and tell others. the US government,32 as well as complicity from some of Challenge the media to stop repeating the lies and the our allies.33 Similar “false flag” operations have been used cover-up. Urge your senators and representatives to open by powerful interests throughout history to take a nation a new, truly independent investigation—wherever it may to war, including by our own government, according to lead. Join the steadily growing nonpartisan 9/11 Truth recently declassified documents.34 The invasion of Afghan- movement, and demand justice. istan had been prepared for the President’s approval before Some are guilty; all are responsible. 9/11.35 Facing these facts, however difficult, is critical to changing the disastrous course set for our country almost —Rabbi Abraham Heschel (-) a decade ago.36 32. Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., former combat/intercept pilot, Director of SDI programs “Let us never tolerate outrageous under Preisdents Ford and Carter, at American Scholars Symposium: 9/11+ the Neo-Con Agenda, 6/25/2006, YouTube.com, C-SPANarchives.org. See also thepatriots.us conspiracy theories concerning the 33.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Infrastructure Threat Information Sharing Framework a Reference Guide for the Critical Infrastructure Community
    Critical Infrastructure Threat Information Sharing Framework A Reference Guide for the Critical Infrastructure Community October 2016 CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE THREAT INFORMATION SHARING FRAMEWORK Page intentionally left blank. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE THREAT INFORMATION SHARING FRAMEWORK Contents Quick Reference Guide for Critical Infrastructure Owners and Operators, .................................. iii Report Threats and Incidents ...................................................................................................... iii Report Suspicious Activity ...................................................................................................... iii Report Suspected or Known Cyber Incidents .......................................................................... iv Report Physical Infrastructure Incidents .................................................................................. iv Become a Partner in the “If You See Something, Say Something™” Campaign ................... iv Receive Threat Information Relevant to Your Sector ................................................................ iv Access Threat Prevention and Protection Related Training and Exercises .............................. v Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Volume XIII, Issue 2 April 2019 PERSPECTIVES on TERRORISM Volume 13, Issue 2
    ISSN 2334-3745 Volume XIII, Issue 2 April 2019 PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM Volume 13, Issue 2 Table of Contents Welcome from the Editors..............................................................................................................................1 Articles A “Lunatic Fringe”? The Persistence of Right Wing Extremism in Australia...............................................2 by Kristy Campion Mapping Transnational Extremist Networks: An Exploratory Study of the Soldiers of Odin’s Facebook Network, Using Integrated Social Network Analysis....................................................................................21 by Yannick Veilleux-Lepage and Emil Archambault The Hand that Feeds the Salafist: an Exploration of the Financial Independence of 131 Dutch Jihadi Travellers.......................................................................................................................................................39 by Melvin Soudijn The Terrorism Recidivism Study (TRS): Examining Recidivism Rates for Post 9/11 Offenders.................54 by Omi Hodwitz Special Correspondence The mid-February 2019 Pulwama attack in Kashmir: an Indian Perspective..............................................65 by Abhinav Pandya The mid-February 2019 Pulwama attack in Kashmir: a Pakistani Perspective...........................................69 by Muhammad Feyyaz Seeing Political Violence through Different Lenses......................................................................................75 by Gregory D. Miller Resources
    [Show full text]