Discrimination is generally considered a bad thing by the left.  When Republicans want to slow the influx of Muslim refugees the Obama administration carries on about how "that's not our values" and that we should not discriminate based on faith.  We are told we should not discriminate against Muslims because of the actions of a few when the majority are "peace-loving".  Are they?  A brief examination of Islamic history shows it to be a violent brutal religion that has conquered vast amounts of territory and that is doing so today.  Could just a "few" have done that?  Police forces in Europe are overwhelmed by the violence of Muslim immigrants and citizens in countries like Sweden are forced to defend themselves because their police can't.  Is this out values?  Christians throughout the Middle East have been murdered by Muslims but the Obama administration won't "discriminate" in favor of Christian victims of Islam.  Christians are afraid to go to refugee camps to get food because of persecution by Muslims there.  Stories of Christians being thrown overboard from ships coming to Europe and of Christians refugees begin persecuted in Europe by Muslim refugees do not justify discrimination in favor of Christians in the Obama book.  In fact he won't even give Christian militias military support.  Are these our values?




 Serge Trifkovic in an interview with frontpage magazine (3/31/2006) pointed out that:

One percent of Muslims living in the United States were responsible for over 90 percent of terrorist offences and serious threats in the country since 9-11. A young Muslim man is literally millions of times more likely to carry out a terrorist attack in the United States than an Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, or a Buddhist. Or for that matter a Lebanese Christian. Membership of a group is a valid pointer in assuming and judging unobserved behavioral characteristics of an individual, especially in the absence of specific information about that individual's background. To suggest otherwise is neither moral nor sane.

   How would you like it if when you boarded a plane you were screened by Muslims with head scarves?  Would you feel a little nervous?  Would you have doubts about the security of the plane?  United Airlines passengers at Dulles airport felt that way and complained.  After those passenger complaints Argenbright security which runs passenger and luggage checkpoints at most of the nation's major airport asked the Muslim women involved with security to take off their head scarves.  Notice, they did not respond to passenger complaints by firing the Muslims just by trying to hide them.  When the Muslim women refused Argenbright fired them.   The women filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission who ruled that they had to be reinstated and that all Argenbright employees had to get Muslim-sensitivity training.  Four of the seven Muslim workers are from Sudan, a country on the State Department's terrorist blacklist. One is from Egypt, and another is from Afghanistan.  ( WorldnetDaily 11/9/01, Airport-security firm at mercy of Muslims)

How would you like it if Imams after attending an Imam conference while waiting for your plane shouted "Allah, Allah, Allah" the last words heard by hundreds of airline passengers on 9/11 before they died.  What if they also denounced America?  What if they asked for seat belt extensions when none of them were fat enough to need them?  What if three of them only had one way tickets and no checked baggage?  Would you stay on the plane or ask to get off? U.S.  airways removed the Muslims from the plane.  Ann Coulter wrote:

instead of investigating the conference, the government is now investigating my favorite airline...

Long before the attacks, an FBI agent in Phoenix found it curious that so many Arabs were enrolled in flight school. But the FBI rebuffed his request for an investigation on the grounds that his suspicions were based on the same invidious racial profiling that has brought US Airways under investigation and into my good graces.

   Fear of profiling prevents the FBI from doing their job.  David Horowitz wrote: (Frontpagemag.com How the Left Undermined America's Security Before 9/11, 9/9/05)

In 1993, the FBI identified three charities connected to the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas that were being used to finance terrorist activities, sending as much as $20 million a year to America’s enemies. According to presidential adviser Dick Morris, “At a White House strategy meeting on April 27, 1995—two weeks after the Oklahoma City bombing—the president was urged to create a ‘President’s List’ of extremist/terrorist groups, their members and donors ‘to warn the public against well-intentioned donations which might foster terrorism.’ On April 1, 1996, he was again advised to ‘prohibit fund-raising by terrorists and identify terrorist organizations.’” Hamas was specifically mentioned.

Inexplicably, Clinton ignored these recommendations. Why? FBI agents have stated that they were prevented from opening either criminal or national-security cases because of a fear that it would be seen as “profiling” Islamic charities. While Clinton was “politically correct,” Hamas flourished.

  Steven Emerson in a speech to the Zionist Organization of America (10/27/02) told the story of an FBI agent who before 9/11 warned the FBI that Bin Laden's men were training in American Flight Schools and that they should be investigated for possible plans to commit acts of terrorism.  Emerson said the agent was either met with ignorance or told that the FBI couldn't do anything about it because that would be profiling.

  Debbie Schlussel and many others have written about how FBI brass refused to allow a complete investigation of Moussaoui--in the name of not profiling Arab Muslims.  Debbie Schlussel wrote (The French Bureau of Investigation, frontpagemag.com 3/20/2006):

According to USA Today's Kevin Johnson, Agent Samit testified that "hours into an interrogation, investigators suspected Moussaoui was involved in 'a plot involving airliners.'" Investigation of Moussaoui became "an obsession" of FBI terrorism investigators.

But it wasn't an obsession--or even a slight concern--for Robert Mueller and company. The FBI Director and his sachems fought these agents every step of the way.


   Michelle Malkin in an article about racial profiling (Racial Profiling, a Matter of Survival, Jewish World Review -August 20, 2004) wrote:

Consider what happened in summer 2001, when Phoenix FBI agent Kenneth Williams urged his superiors to investigate militant Muslim men whom he suspected of training in U.S. flight schools as part of al-Qaeda missions.

Williams' recommendation was rejected, FBI Director Robert Mueller later said, partly because of concerns that the plan could be viewed as discriminatory racial profiling.

Mueller acknowledged that if Williams' Phoenix profiling memo had been shared with the agency's Minneapolis office, which had unsuccessfully sought a special intelligence warrant to search suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop computer, the warrant might have been granted.

If the FBI had taken Williams' advice, the feeling of some Arabs and Muslims might have been hurt. But the Twin Towers might still be standing and 3,000 innocent people might be alive today.

   On the day of 9/11 the Michael Tuohey, the ticket agent who gave Muhammad Atta and Abul Aziz Al Omari, tickets suspected they were terrorists.  Touhey told Smerconish, the author of "Flying Blind: How Political Correctness Continues to Compromise Airline Safety Post-9/11" about what happened that day.  He said:

"I looked up, and asked them the standard questions. The one guy was looking at me. It sent a chill through me. Something in my stomach churned. And subconsciously, I said to myself, 'If they don't look like Arab terrorists, nothing does.'

"Then I gave myself a mental slap. In over 34 years, I had checked in thousands of Arab travelers, and I never thought this before. I said to myself, 'That's not nice to think. They are just two Arab businessmen.'"

  This desire to be nice and fair was a factor in the death of thousands of people. (wnd.com 2/26/05)

   Heather MacDonald wrote an article in City Journal (4/20/04) titled "What We Don't Know Can Hurt Us" about how measures that could defend against terrorism are not taken because of privacy concerns.  She wrote:

On 9/11, the airline-passenger profiling system flagged as suspicious nine of the 19 hijackers as they attempted to board, including all five terrorists holding seats on American Airlines 77, which flew into the Pentagon; three of the hijackers on American Flight 11; and one hijacker on United Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania. Security procedures at the time prohibited airport personnel from interviewing flagged passengers or hand-searching their carry-on luggage—a mad capitulation to the civil liberties and Arab lobbies.

   Heather Mac Donald in an OpEd (The Elite War on Our Bigotry, New York Post 9/10/02) wrote:

This August, law enforcement authorities in Southern California arrested 81 airport workers including 23 fugitives, who had forged phony security badges to gain access to airplanes, runways and cargo holds.  One would think that protecting the nation's airports would meet universal approval.  Not so.   Protestors charged that the fraud crackdown was insensitive to illegal aliens.

Likewise, when the FBI broke a terror cell in Detroit last month and federal prosecutors simultaneously indicted over a dozen local men for providing phony immigration documents, Muslim leaders groused about ethnic profiling.  It seems that one can't enforce the law anymore without being accused of bias.

   Annie Jacobsen, a writer for womenswallstreet.com, witnessed what most probably was a dry run for assembling a bomb in midair onboard a passenger plane while flying from Detroit to Los Angeles.  In an article titled Terror in the Skies Again? (frontpagemag.com 7/16/04) she wrote:

So here's my question: Since the FBI issued a warning to the airline industry to be wary of groups of five men on a plane who might be trying to build bombs in the bathroom, shouldn't a group of  14 Middle Eastern men be screened before boarding a flight? 

Apparently not. Due to our rules against discrimination, it can't be done. During the 9/11 hearings last April, 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman stated that …it was the policy (before 9/11) and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory. 

Annie Jacobsen did some research after her flight and found out that:

"On September 21, as the remains of thousands of Americans lay smoldering at Ground Zero, [Secretary of Transportation Norman] Mineta fired off a letter to all U.S. airlines forbidding them from implementing the one security measure that could have prevented 9/11: subjecting Middle Eastern passengers to an added degree of pre-flight scrutiny. He sternly reminded the airlines that it was illegal to discriminate against passengers based on their race, color, national or ethnic origin or religion." 

  After reading Annie Jacobsen's article, Mark Bogosian, a B-757/767 pilot for American Airlines wrote to her that: "The incident you wrote about, and incidents like it, occur more than you like to think.  It is a 'dirty little secret' that all of us, as crew members, have known about for quite some time

   In a followup article Annie Jacobsen quoted Rand K. Peck, captain for a major U.S. airline as saying:

I've observed matronly looking grandmothers, practically disrobed at security check points and five-year-old blonde boys turned inside out, while Middle Eastern males sail through undetained.

We have little to fear from grandmothers and little boys. But Middle Eastern males are protected, not by our Constitution, but from our current popular policy of political correctness and a desire to offend no one at any cost, regardless of how many airplanes and bodies litter the landscape. This is my personal opinion, formed by my experiences and observations."

This brings us to the heart of the matter -- political correctness.  Political correctness has become a major road block for airline safety.  From what I've now learned from the many emails and phone calls that I have had with airline industry personnel, it is political correctness that will eventually cause us to stand there wondering, "How did we let 9/11 happen again?" 

   When Clinton was in office he was advised to shut down U.S. based charities raising money for terrorist organizations.  Clinton ignored these recommendations.  According to Dick Morris in his OpEd "Why Clinton Slept" (New York Post 1/2/02)

FBI agents have stated that they were prevented from opening either criminal or national-security cases because of a fear that it would be seen as "profiling" Islamic charities.

   Jack Kelly in his OpEd "Air Security: Still a Joke New York Post 1/2/02) wrote how in 1996 then Vice President Al Gore chaired a commission on aviation security.  When word leaked out that the commission was considering a profiling system that would take into account an air passenger's national origin and ethnicity, lobbyists for Arab and civil rights groups went ballistic.  Heather Mac Donald wrote in the Weekly Standard the Gore Commission's response.

So the Gore Commission dutifully abjured the inclusion of national origin, religion, ethnicity and even gender in its recommended passenger profiling system.

   Heather Mac Donald wrote that had a proper passenger screening system been in place, at least two of the 9/11 hijackers probably would have been caught. 

   Racial profiling was a big scandal until September 11.   After that Michael Kinsley wrote: 

We're at war with a terror network that just killed 6,000 innocents and has anonymous agents in our country planning more slaughter.  Are we really supposed to ignore the one identifiable fact we know about them?

   Martin Peretz in the October 15, 01 issue of the New Republic who quoted Kinsley wrote:

Obviously not, and this is the conclusion of even those Americans most sensitive to racial profiling's dangers.  According to a Gallup Poll, 71 percent of black respondents said they favor requiring Arabs to submit to more intensive airport security checks than others.

   The Wall Street Journal of 11/26/01 reported that the FBI for a decade looked the other way as a U.S. army sergeant of Arab descent trained soldiers for Osama bin Laden -- on U.S. soil.  an FBI agent was quoted as saying that ever sensitive to the rights of our guests, U.S. officials "had to steer clear of the mosques" in their fight against terrorism.

   Sami Al Arian a University of Florida professor was caught on tape saying: (A Jihadi in Florida New York Post 2/21/03)

Jihad is our path! Victory to Islam!  Death to Israel!   Revolution until victory!  Let us damn America...until death!

   Later he said the quotes had been taken "out of context" a typical ploy used by Arabs to justify the most outrageous statements.

   Steven Emerson (New York Post 2/21/03) wrote how Sami Al-Arian ran the U.S. operations of Islamic Jihad and raised money for them with organizations that characterized themselves as a Muslim academic institute, a Palestinian humanitarian aid group and an Islamic religious center.  Emerson writes that when he produced the documentary Jihad in America, exposing Al-Arian:

Virtually every national Islamic "civil rights" group - created with the same guile that fostered the success of Al Arian's organization - responded by claiming that we were "attacking Islam" and that we were stereotyping all Muslims...

In the end Al-Arian succeeded in his deception via the same exact formula that constrained the FBI - deterred by the fear of being accused of "racial profiling" - from investigating Islamic militants training in U.S. flight academies in the months before 9/11.  This formula lies at the heart of Western vulnerability to terrorist groups implanted in our midst.Al Qaeda and Hamas used in in setting up Islamic "civil rights" groups and charities throughout the '90s designed to tar with the broad epithet of "racism" anyone who would have exposed their secret terrorist connection.

   Sami Al-Arian was also defended by self styled defenders of academic freedom.  John Podhoretz (New York Post 2/21/03) wrote that it was well known that Al-Arian was using Florida University as a means of organizing and fund raising for Islamic Jihad.  When the university president leaned toward dismissing Sami Al Arian, the American Association of University Professors threatened to remove USF's accreditation.  Podhoretz wrote:

This is madness.  "Academic freedom" does not include the right to plan and execute a conspiracy to murder hundreds of people, including two American citizens...

   Richard Reid the man who tried to blow up a plane with explosive hidden in his shoe flew previously on El Al.  El Al subjected Reid  to a very rigorous check of all the items he was carrying, as well as a personal search, including the removal of shoes and sending the shoes to be checked.  Nery Yarkoni, an Israeli aviation security consultant with clients in the United States, said the close scrutiny given to Reid indicates that profiling works.  Yarkoni said blanket, intensive security checks of all passengers, regardless of the risk they pose, are not practical. ``Either this will destroy the (aviation) industry or it won't prevent attacks,'' he said. (El Al Screened Shoe-Bombing Suspect By KARIN LAUB The Associated Press December, 2000)

   After the Sept 11 attacks 54% of Arab-Americans said officials were justified in asking more questions of people with Middle Eastern accents or features while only 36% disagreed. (New York Post 10/12/01)

Inspite of these opinions that profiling is valuable airport screeners will not be allowed to profile people.  Dr. Steve Plaut writes that (3/31/02):

They will continue random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper  identification, Secret Service agents who are members of the President's  security detail and 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips.

    I believe the following was written by Steve Plaut:

Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following Multiple Choice test.... No need to keep score. The events are actual cuts from past history. They actually happened! Do you remember?

1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:

  1. Olga Corbitt
  2. Sitting Bull
  3. Arnold Schwarzeneger
  4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:

  1. Lost Norwegians
  2. Elvis
  3. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
  4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:

  1. John Dillinger
  2. The King of Sweden
  3. The Boy Scouts
  4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:

  1. A pizza delivery boy
  2. Pee Wee Herman
  3. Geraldo Rivera
  4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year-old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:

  1. The Smurfs
  2. Davy Jones
  3. The Little Mermaid
  4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:

  1. Captain Kidd
  2. Charles Lindberg
  3. Mother Teresa
  4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:

  1. Scooby Doo
  2. The Tooth Fairy
  3. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
  4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:

  1. Richard Simmons
  2. Grandma Moses
  3. Michael Jordan
  4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


9. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:

  1. Mr. Rogers
  2. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
  3. The World Wrestling Federation
  4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


10. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:

  1. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
  2. The Supreme Court of Florida
  3. Mr. Bean
  4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:

  1. Enron
  2. The Lutheran Church
  3. The NFL
  4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:

  1. Bonnie and Clyde
  2. Captain Kangaroo
  3. Billy Graham
  4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

Nope, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?

So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people.

They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning former Governors, and leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 & 40 alone because of profiling.

   Given that the answers were always (4) profiling would be likely to save lives if it were done.

    Phylis Chesler a renowned Jewish author and professor was stopped at JFK Airport by suspicious TSA screeners who interrogated her and searched her bags after they saw her reading a Jewish periodical with a conservative editorial stance. While they were doing this, a Muslim woman in an Islamic head covering that hides the entire face except for her eyes was able to continue on to her destination without being detained.

   The principle behind racial profiling is that people with certain characteristics statistically are more likely to be guilty of crime and being more intensive in investigating them is more likely to prevent criminals from remaining at large. If that principle applies to Arabs than shouldn't it apply to other groups who statistics show are more likely to commit crime?  The result of the New Jersey police
recently stopped to use racial profiling to decide which cars to pull over and search, was that drug busts dropped by 55% on the Garden State Parkway in 2000.

Affirmative Action is a Form of Racial Profiling

   Michelle Malkin in an article about racial profiling (Racial Profiling, a Matter of Survival, Jewish World Review -August 20, 2004) pointed out that:

many of the ethnic activists and civil-liberties groups who object most strenuously to the use of racial, ethnic, religious and nationality classifications during war support the use of similar classifications to ensure "diversity" or "parity" in peacetime.

Just Because More Blacks are Arrested Doesn't Mean the Police Are Profiling

   There is a curious phenomenon in the USA that when enforcement authorities crack down on a criminal group and most of that criminal group is of a certain ethnicity, or religion, the authorities are criticized for profiling.   What would these critics have the authorities do, not crack down on crime because most of the criminals are of a certain race or religion?  Wouldn't that be a form of profiling, to first determine the percentage of races guilty of a particular crime before deciding to crack down on it.  What about the racial makeup of the victims of a crime.  Blacks are the predominant victim of black crime.  If we do not crack down on black crime are we not victimizing blacks?  The critics who complain about profiling are making an implicit admission that more of a certain race is guilty of a certain crime.  Couldn't that admission be considered a racist statement?  Heather MacDonald in a column in the New York Post (3/27/02) wrote that:

To show that the police are stopping too many members of a group, you need to know, at a minimum, the rate of law breaking among that group (the violator benchmark).  ...A study commissioned by the New Jersey Attorney General showed that blacks speed twice as much as whites, and speed at reckless levels even more.  ...Yet blacks are stopped less than their speeding behavior would predict. 

Heather writes that because of fear of profiling charges troops reduced drug searches from 7400 in 1988 to 370 in 2000.  Arrests by state troppers also plummeted.  She writes:

Not surprisingly, murder jumped 65% from 2000 to 2001 in Newark, a major destination of drug traffickers.

Worldnetdaily (3/28/03) reported that just hours after the Beltway snipers shot out a crafts store window in Aspen Maryland, kicking off a three-week rampage, a pizza delivery man on shift next to the store told local police he saw two short-haired black males leave the scene – laughing and "high-fiving" each other – in a dark, older-model car.

About 45 minutes later, they shot and killed a 55-year-old man in a grocery store parking lot in nearby Wheaton, Md. He was the first of the snipers' 13 victims.

Suspecting the Michaels shooting was connected, one of Moose's homicide detectives canvassed the shopping center there, a senior investigator says. He took a statement from a Papa John's Pizza employee working two doors down from Michaels, who said he heard the rifle report and turned to see "two black males with short hair" driving slowly away in a dark-colored "beat-up vehicle," the source said.

The witness told the detective the men were "laughing and high-fiving themselves" as they left the parking lot, according to the investigator, who requested anonymity. The car then sped up as it exited the parking lot, as if "fleeing the scene," as the witness reportedly put it.

Yet the sniper task force, led by Montgomery County Police Chief Charles Moose, ignored the early eyewitness account and focused instead on a white suspect in a white vehicle, according to MCPD investigators.

John Allen Muhammad, 42, and Lee Boyd Malvo, 18, both black, were arrested in the murder spree on Oct. 24, while sleeping at a rural Maryland rest area. They were in a dark blue 1990 Chevrolet Caprice.

WorldnetDaily reported that:

Some Montgomery county police officers charge that Moose was reluctant to release the suspects' race throughout the manhunt, because he had agreed with the Justice Department to end racial profiling in the county in 2000. Moose, who has blamed "systemic racism" for what he calls an "overrepresentation" of blacks on death row, also ended racial profiling in Portland, Ore., when he served as that city's police chief.

"Moose didn't want his officers stopping every black in Montgomery County," said one officer who worked on the investigation. "Of course, it was OK to stop every white in a white box truck."

Police union officials complained in salary arbitration hearings with the county that Moose jeopardized investigators' and patrol officers' safety by withholding the descriptions.

Some of the sniper's victims might be alive today if the police had been given the correct description of the suspects.

    In an interview with Frontpage Magazine, (Holy War on the Home Front 3/23/05) Harvey Kushner author of the book Holy War on the Home Front said:

As for profiling, it works. Profiling enabled Israel to keep Richard Reid, who tried to ignite a crude bomb embedded in his sneaker on an American Airlines flight traveling from Paris to Miami, off their airliner.


I advocate profiling because I consider the danger to America posed by terrorists, and the possibility of their using weapons of mass destruction or germ warfare against us, to outweigh all other concerns. Profiling at our airports and borders and in seaports can lessen that threat, and if that’s what it takes to protect us, I will be first in line to be profiled, too.

Civil Liberty Paralysis


    The ultimate Civil Liberty is to live.  3000 people lost that civil liberty due to protection of their civil liberties by a wall that prevented intelligence agencies from cooperating. 


Aftger Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman’s 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center Army Intelligence and the Special Operations Command launched an investigation into potential Islamist terrorists living in the United States (David Horowitz, frontpagemag.com 9/9/05).


This operation was named “Able Danger.” Using “data mining” techniques to track Muslims associated with radical mosques, agents identified 9/11 mastermind Mohammed Atta and three of his fellow hijackers as members of a New York City-based al-Qaeda cell (codenamed “Brooklyn”). Three witnesses—Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer, Captain Scott Philpott, and Defense contractor J.D. Smith—have come forward to verify that “Able Danger” identified Mohammed Atta as a potential al-Qaeda threat by name as early as 1999. However, when officers asked permission to inform the FBI of their findings and request they closely supervise “Brooklyn,” military lawyers prevented from them sharing this information on three separate occasions.

The trouble, the attorneys told the intelligence agents, stemmed from federal guidelines prohibiting various agencies from sharing intelligence or coordinating investigations across bureaucratic lines. The Legal Left had claimed this practice violated civil liberties and, with an advocate in the White House, existing barriers were raised ever higher.


c o p y r i g h t   ( c )   1 9 9 9 - 2004 Karl Ericson Enterprises.  All rights reserved

Table of Contents