11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Sep 10, 2016 7:19 pm

DrEvil » Sat Sep 10, 2016 3:14 pm wrote:^^Pretty sure I saw pics/video of the other side of the building (facing the towers) showing some pretty extensive damage from the earlier collapse.

Or the building had a demolition fail-safe built into it due to the various shady government offices it was housing. A last resort to prevent anyone rifling their drawers.

My personal pet theory for why the towers collapsed is that someone involved in the construction cut corners and used lower grade steel and pocketed the difference (criminals in the construction business? In New York? Preposterous!). Would also explain why they were so keen to cart everything off to China so fast since it would fuck up the insurance claim.

All these points are of course pure speculation and have no bearing on your reality of choice. :)


"reality of your choice", indeed. The illusion of a shared reality is quite persistent.

Your pet theory is no less valid than any other, of course. That said, in an exhibition of weekend laziness -- as I'm tired of watching myself type, and also because the quoted explanation below surpasses whatever pastiche I'd conjure up -- I will copy/paste a portion of a thread that more or less mimics my sentiment on this matter (I haven't yet performed proper due diligence on this 'metabunk' site; I may retract this link later):

https://www.metabunk.org/wtc-7-building-7.t1094/


WTC7
Image

Looks to be a small office fire that spread to about 2 floors towards the end of the video. Remember, no jet fuel on this building since no planes hit it. Some "corner damage" does not explain the building dropping out of the sky the way it did.


So....when the penthouse falls from the roof to the ground before the rest of the building even moves..why do you consider that evidence of demolition?

Because the bulk of the structure then proceeded to crumble into dust and debris. Partial collapses due to fire in steel structures aren't unheard of, but a complete collapse unquestionably is. That it happened once, horrible. That it happened twice, incredible. That it happened three times consecutively? Unbelievable. I don't see what the pent-house dropping first changes about that.
...
I've also never denied that the building was on fire, nor that it suffered considerable damage to one corner. Structural damage to the bottom corner of a building is an understandable cause for a collapse, in the direction of that damaged bottom corner. Building seven didn't collapse due to structural damage though, remember? It collapsed due to the fires alone according to NIST, as the structural damage to the corner cannot possibly account for the way in which the building collapsed. It took them seven years to compose a believable account of the building 7 collapse, and even then the account seems entirely inadequate compared to the findings of an investigation of a far less significant event. The NIST report on building 7 isn't 'proof' of anything, and their 3D model would never be considered admissible in a court of law without disclosure of the data used to produce it.


User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 1952
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby DrEvil » Sat Sep 10, 2016 8:12 pm

I remembered it looking much worse than in that picture. Goes to show how unreliable memory is.
I'm definitely leaning towards CD for building 7 and coming around to the same for the towers.

I'm always moaning about how we should listen to the scientists, so I should take my own medicine.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 2344
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby 8bitagent » Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:57 am

82_28 » Sat Sep 10, 2016 3:46 pm wrote:Just in time! I just read this at Salon.

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/10/enginee ... 1_partner/

Engineering ourselves against terror attacks: How building design changed after 9/11

The CD people are strong in the comments. We are not alone. I love Sr. 8bit, but there is always going to be something I disagree with him about (we're basically friends IRL BTW).

All of it was CD. All three buildings collapsed for a meticulously planned purpose. There were many empty floors and the staircases at night had no one in them, let alone the day. Janitors, vendors etc could have totally been waved in. That said, I believe to a degree they were built, designed, to collapse at a certain date. These were icons. I think I said it years ago here or somewhere, that they should just build a replica of one of the buildings somewhere to test it out but this time without explosives. The blueprints exist. Build it and see what happens. It would definitely be "must see TV" that I highly doubt any network would touch. But they would have to if some WTC replica was built in the desert or something.


I will agree, as I have since I joined RI, that the buildings in the mind of the 9/11 masterminds, had to come down
Last edited by 8bitagent on Sun Sep 11, 2016 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12049
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby 8bitagent » Sun Sep 11, 2016 2:02 am

backtoiam » Sat Sep 10, 2016 6:02 pm wrote:
Obama Faces Humiliation After House Unanimously Passes Bill Allowing Sept 11 Lawsuits Against Saudi Arabia


by Tyler Durden
Sep 9, 2016 12:12 PM

Two days before the 15 year anniversary of the September 11 attack, moments ago the House unanimously passed - to thunderous applause - legislation allowing the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts, The bill, which passed the Senate unanimously in May, now heads to President Obama’s desk. And that's where things get tricky for Obama.

The White House has fiercely opposed the bill, arguing it could both strain relations with Saudi Arabia and also lead to retaliatory legislation overseas against U.S. citizens. Obama has lobbied fiercely against the bill, and has hinted strongly it will veto the measure.

He is not alone: the Saudi government has likewise led a vocal campaign in Washington to kill the legislation. Those efforts have been fruitless in Congress, however. Meanwhile, the legislation saw broad support from both parties, and Congress could override an Obama veto for the first time if he rejects the legislation. Such an outcome would undoubtedly embarrass Obama and divide Democrats ahead of the 2016 elections and a crucial lame-duck session of Congress.

For now, Obama is adamanat: "The Saudis will see this as a hostile act," said Dennis Ross, Obama’s former Middle East policy coordinator. "You’re bound to see the Obama administration do everything they can to sustain a veto."

How Obama will spin such a pro-Saudi, and anti-US decision, which may be overriden anyway, to the US population is unclear.

To an extent, Obama finds himself between a rock and a hard place. As we reported in April, Saudi officials threatened the enactment of the law could lead them to sell off the kingdom’s U.S. Treasury debt and other American assets, which the officials told lawmakers and U.S. officials totaled $750 billion, according to the New York Times. The Saudi government held $117 billion in U.S. Treasury debt in March, according to Treasury figures obtained by Bloomberg. The kingdom may have additional holdings not included in the data on deposit with the New York Federal Reserve Bank, in entities in third countries, or through positions in derivatives.

According to the Hill, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are unsure whether Obama will actually use his veto pen on the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. “I presume they would have to think very carefully about a veto because it might very well be overridden,” said Nadler.

To override the president, supporters would need a two-thirds majority in each chamber. “I think the votes will be there to override it,” said Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), who introduced the bill in the House.

As a result of potentially facing a lose-lose outcome, many on Capitol Hill do not believe that the veto is a done deal. The White House has not issued an official position on the bill and spokespeople have been careful with their language, stopping short of issuing a full veto threat. “We have serious concerns with the bill as written,” a White House official said Wednesday.

“We believe there needs to be more careful consideration of the potential unintended consequences of its enactment before the House considers the legislation,” the official said. “We would welcome opportunities to further engage with the Congress on that discussion.”

The president has 10 days to either sign or reject the legislation before it becomes law.

Meanwhile, supporters of the legislation see it as a moral imperative.

“The victims of 9-11 and other terrorist attacks on US soil have suffered much pain and heartache, but they should not be denied justice,” Schumer said in a statement Wednesday. Under current U.S. law, victims may sue a country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, like Iran. The bill would allow citizens to sue countries without that designation — like Saudi Arabia.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 hailed from Saudi Arabia. Critics have long suspected that the kingdom’s government may have either directly or indirectly supported the attacks.

Congress in July released 28 previously secret pages detailing suspicious Saudi ties to the 9/11 hijackers, which made it very clear - according to a closer read of the document - that Saudi officials did indeed help plan and organize the attacks, even as the White House downplayed their involvement.

Saudi officials have for years denied that their government had any role in plotting the attacks and the Saudi government has led a quiet campaign in Washington to kill the legislation.

Despite its popularity in Congress, some prominent national security advisors have also pilloried the bill.

Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton and ex-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, both of whom served under President George W. Bush, this week warned that the legislation “is far more likely to harm the United States than bring justice against any sponsor of terrorism.”

* * *

The real question, however, is not so much what Obama - who could potentially be branded a traitor if he proceeds with a veto as suggested, against the wishes of every single member of Congress, and the US population - will do, but how the Saudis, some of the most generous donors of the Clinton Foundation, will respond if the law indeed passes. As a reminder, in an epic media blunder, in early June, the Saudi Crown Prince admitted that Saudi Arabia had funded 20% of Hillary's presidential campaign, and will surely demand a quid pro quo in exchange. What Saudi vengeance may look like, should the generous Clinton donor's will not be obeyed, will be something Hillary's campaign will surely be very interested in.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-0 ... 11-lawsuit


What I'm curious about is how this will be enforced if it becomes reality. If the Saudis hold up their middle finger and refuse to pay the only way I can think of that it could be enforced is an asset seizure.


Obama showing his true colors. Most of the left seems to mostly determine the merits of politicians by if they are pro gay(Cheney was for gay rights before both Obama and Hillary Clinton) or racial equality.
But it's startling, bizarre when the Bush neocon lacky GOP suddenly is wanting to expose the closest US ally, Saudi Arabia for the crimes of 9/11. The idiot alt right and the "anti semites" before them always
tried to spin the world as this "Zionist" puppeteering of US affairs. But I've long felt, as much as Israel may have had a supporting nascent role in 9/11, that Saudi Arabia is America's best friend. Whom the US will protect at all cost. Even helping the Saudi kingdom in Yemen, where 10,000+ civilians have been killed in the last couple years.

Btw, people forget that the Saudi government was in on the planning and execution of the Iraq war with the neocons too
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12049
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby tapitsbo » Sun Sep 11, 2016 10:02 am

Forget Israel and Saudi, involved though they surely were. 9/11 has strong indications of being a project of the US permanent establishment
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby 82_28 » Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:23 pm

Crossposting:

Obligatory.

There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11026
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby tapitsbo » Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:13 pm

Maybe time to to take stock of some of the "truther" classics.

Peter Dale Scott and Joel van der Reijden's 9/11 accounts are both sourced heavily from left.ru, whose information is difficult to verify.

Likewise a lot of the accounts of the Russian apartment bombings seem linked to "exiled oligarch" funded journalism. Shades of the Litvinenko thread.

Since the consequences have been so different maybe these events aren't equivalent after all?

I am slightly skeptical of the idea that the exact same players are behind both events. Although there is obviously the overlap of alleged jihadist groups as official suspects, followed by permanent emergency. And I do think that Russia and the West share a lot of high level deep links in their power structures. But the trajectory of the USA and of Russia since these events has been very different. Developments in the North Caucasus have been very different from those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm not sure what to think of a lot of other well known truthers such as Michael Ruppert or Sibel Edmonds. Ruppert definitely mixed in a lot of shady sources like Gunderson and Riconosciuto.

All the stuff about Al-Qaeda/Bin Laden, hijackers, etc. really seems like a distraction when considering 9/11, as does the demoliton method. The chain of command for the government responses to the event - and the trail of evidence left by media psy-operators who have pushed obvious lies/agendas - both speak voluminously louder as to the significance and execution of the myth/spectacle surrounding "that clear blue Tuesday"
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby Grizzly » Thu Sep 15, 2016 1:15 am

The Psychological Implications of 9/11 by Laurie Manwell (Part 1 of 6)


http://statecrimesagainstdemocracy.blogspot.com/
If Barthes can forgive me, “What the public wants is the image of passion Justice, not passion Justice itself.”
Grizzly
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby 8bitagent » Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:30 am

In case there was any doubt the Saudi government helped orchestrate and finance the 9/11 horror show...
http://nypost.com/2017/09/09/saudi-gove ... n-for-911/

According to this, the Saudi embassy out of DC had two of their agents do a dry run in 1999 on a flight from Arizona to DC where they tried to access the cockpit on a commercial jumbo jet several times.
With over 5000 pages of evidence submitted in this latest legal data dump brief, it's a smoking gun goldmine of direct Saudi intel and government complicity both financial, material, spiritual, etc. And surprise surprise,
Anwar al-Awlaki figures into it.

Saudi government allegedly funded a ‘dry run’ for 9/11

Fresh evidence submitted in a major 9/11 lawsuit moving forward against the Saudi Arabian government reveals its embassy in Washington may have funded a “dry run” for the hijackings carried out by two Saudi employees, further reinforcing the claim that employees and agents of the kingdom directed and aided the 9/11 hijackers and plotters.

Two years before the airliner attacks, the Saudi Embassy paid for two Saudi nationals, living undercover in the US as students, to fly from Phoenix to Washington “in a dry run for the 9/11 attacks,” alleges the amended complaint filed on behalf of the families of some 1,400 victims who died in the terrorist attacks 16 years ago.

The court filing provides new details that paint “a pattern of both financial and operational support” for the 9/11 conspiracy from official Saudi sources, lawyers for the plaintiffs say. In fact, the Saudi government may have been involved in underwriting the attacks from the earliest stages — including testing cockpit security.

“We’ve long asserted that there were longstanding and close relationships between al Qaeda and the religious components of the Saudi government,” said Sean Carter, the lead attorney for the 9/11 plaintiffs. “This is further evidence of that.”

Lawyers representing Saudi Arabia last month filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which may finally be headed toward trial now that Congress has cleared diplomatic-immunity hurdles. A Manhattan federal judge has asked the 9/11 plaintiffs, represented by lead law firm Cozen O’Connor, to respond to the motion by November.

Citing FBI documents, the complaint alleges that the Saudi students — Mohammed al-Qudhaeein and Hamdan al-Shalawi — were in fact members of “the Kingdom’s network of agents in the US,” and participated in the terrorist conspiracy.

They had trained at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan at the same time some of the hijackers were there. And while living in Arizona, they had regular contacts with a Saudi hijacker pilot and a senior al Qaeda leader from Saudi now incarcerated at Gitmo. At least one tried to re-enter the US a month before the attacks as a possible muscle hijacker but was denied admission because he appeared on a terrorist watch list.

Qudhaeein and Shalawi both worked for and received money from the Saudi government, with Qudhaeein employed at the Ministry of Islamic Affairs. Shalawi was also “a longtime employee of the Saudi government.” The pair were in “frequent contact” with Saudi officials while in the US, according to the filings.

During a November 1999 America West flight to Washington, Qudhaeein and Shalawi are reported to have tried multiple times to gain access to the cockpit of the plane in an attempt to test flight-deck security in advance of the hijackings.

‘The dry run reveals more of the fingerprints of the Saudi government.’ - Kristen Breitweiser

“After they boarded the plane in Phoenix, they began asking the flight attendants technical questions about the flight that the flight attendants found suspicious,” according to a summary of the FBI case files.

“When the plane was in flight, al-Qudhaeein asked where the bathroom was; one of the flight attendants pointed him to the back of the plane,” it added. “Nevertheless, al-Qudhaeein went to the front of the plane and attempted on two occasions to enter the cockpit.”

The pilots were so spooked by the Saudi passengers and their aggressive behavior that they made an emergency landing in Ohio. On the ground there, police handcuffed them and took them into custody. Though the FBI later questioned them, it decided not to pursue prosecution.

But after the FBI discovered that a suspect in a counterterrorism investigation in Phoenix was driving Shalawi’s car, the bureau opened a counterterrorism case on Shalawi. Then, in November 2000, the FBI received reporting that Shalawi trained at terrorist camps in Afghanistan and had received explosives training to perform attacks on American targets. The bureau also suspected Qudhaeein was a Saudi intelligence agent, based on his frequent contact with Saudi officials.

More, investigators learned that the two Saudis traveled to Washington to attend a symposium hosted by the Saudi Embassy in collaboration with the Institute for Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America, which was chaired by the Saudi ambassador. Before being shut down for terrorist ties, IIASA employed the late al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki as a lecturer. Awlaki ministered to some of the hijackers and helped them obtain housing and IDs.

The FBI also confirmed that Qudhaeein’s and Shalawi’s airline tickets for the pre-9/11 dry run were paid for by the Saudi Embassy.

“The dry run reveals more of the fingerprints of the Saudi government,” said Kristen Breitweiser, one of the New York plaintiffs, whose husband perished at the World Trade Center.

“These guys were Saudi government employees for years and were paid by the Saudi government,” she added. “In fact, the Saudi Embassy paid for their plane tickets for the dry run.”

After the Nov. 19, 1999, incident — which took place less than two months before the first hijackers entered the US — both Saudi men held posts as Saudi government employees at the Imam Muhammad Ibn Saudi Islamic University, the parent of IIASA — “a further indication of their longstanding ties to the Saudi government,” the 9/11 complaint states.

Carter said in an interview that the allegations that the Saudi Embassy sponsored a pre-9/11 dry run — along with charges of other Saudi involvement in the 9/11 plot, from California to Florida — are based on “nearly 5,000 pages of evidence submitted of record and incorporated by reference into the complaint.”

They include “every FBI report that we have been able to obtain,” though hundreds of thousands of pages of government documents related to Saudi terror funding remain secret.

Attempts to reach lawyers representing the Saudi government by phone and email were unsuccessful. However, in last month’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, they argued that the plaintiffs cannot prove the kingdom or its employees directly supported the hijackers.



Also kind of funny...campaign Donnie in 2016


and 2017 Donnie
Image
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12049
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby Elvis » Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:23 am

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Marion_Bowman

Marion Bowman
Person.png Marion Bowman History Commons
(spook, mariner, diplomat)

Marion_Bowman.jpg
Marion_Bowman.jpg (28.33 KiB) Viewed 1134 times


Marion "Spike" Bowman is the former Senior Counsel to the FBI, and the former Deputy National Counter Intelligence Executive.

=Career
He joined the U.S. Navy and became a Captain who has served as Head of International Law at the Naval War College. He also worked as a diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in Rome, Italy, and as Chief of Litigation for the U.S. Navy.[1]
9/11

On August 28, 2001, as head of the FBI’s national security law unit Bowman refused to seek a special warrant for a search of Zacarias Moussaoui’s belongings before the 9/11 attacks.

In 2003 FBI Director Robert Mueller personally awarded Marion (Spike) Bowman with a presidential citation for "exceptional performance" and cash bonus of approximately 25 percent of his salary. The award comes shortly after a 9/11 Congressional Inquiry report saying Bowman’s unit gave Minneapolis FBI agents “inexcusably confused and inaccurate information” that was “patently false."[2]

He also thwarted FBI investigations into the anthrax attacks on Congress.[3]


References

http://witnesstoguantanamo.com/intervie ... ikebowman/
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js ... %29_bowman
http://www.whodidit.org/cocon.html


This is a page stub. Please add to it.

This page was last modified on 10 November 2015, at 12:40.



http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js ... n_(_spike_)_bowman

Home » Entities » Marion (“Spike”) Bowman
Profile: Marion (“Spike”) Bowman
Related Entities:

Employee National Security Law Unit
Acquaintance of Tom Ainora

Marion (“Spike”) Bowman was a participant or observer in the following events:

August 20, 2001 and After: Key Justice Department Unit Not Consulted about Moussaoui Warrant Request
Edit event

A memo from Attorney General John Ashcroft about the FISA process, obtained by the Center for Grassroots Oversight by FOIA request.A memo from Attorney General John Ashcroft about the FISA process, obtained by the Center for Grassroots Oversight by FOIA request. [Source: Office of the Attorney General] (click image to enlarge)A key Justice Department unit, the Office of Intelligence and Policy Review (OIPR), is not consulted about a request to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s belongings. Although it is this office that would submit an application for a search warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the legal aspects of the application are discussed only with the National Security Law Unit, which is beneath the OIPR (see August 22-28, 2001). FBI officials discuss what they think the OIPR will want in a warrant application, but do not ask it directly. Sherry Sabol, an attorney in the lower National Security Law Unit, will later say that she would have contacted the OIPR to discuss a possible warrant application, if FBI headquarters agents had not withheld information from her (see August 22-28, 2001). When shown the relevant documentation for the Moussaoui case after 9/11, the OIPR’s general counsel will say he would have considered the application and, if submitted, he “would have tied bells and whistles” to a comment by Moussaoui’s imam that Moussaoui and an associate wanted to “go on jihad” (see August 17, 2001). [US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 132-166, 182-4, 201 pdf file] However, a memo from Attorney General John Ashcroft issued in May to improve the efficiency of the FISA process recommended communications between field offices, FBI headquarters, and the OIPR. In addition, the OIPR and the FBI should hold regular monthly meetings to discuss FISA warrants. It is unclear if such a meeting is held in the three weeks between Moussaoui’s arrest and 9/11. However, one of the people supposed to attend such meetings is Spike Bowman, chief of the National Security Law Unit, who is involved in the Moussaoui case (see August 28, 2001). [US Department of Justice, 5/18/2001 pdf file]

Entity Tags: Marion (“Spike”) Bowman, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Zacarias Moussaoui, Radical Fundamentalist Unit, FBI Headquarters, Sherry Sabol, National Security Law Unit, Office of Intelligence Policy and Review

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline
August 28, 2001: Attorney Kills Moussaoui Warrant Request
Edit event

Mike Maltbie and Rita Flack of the Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU) forward a request for a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s belongings (see August 21, 2001) to National Security Law Unit chief Spike Bowman. The request was submitted by the Minneapolis field office (see August 22-28, 2001), which has been trying to obtain a warrant for some time. Earlier in the day, Maltbie edited the request, removing information connecting Moussaoui to al-Qaeda through a rebel group in Chechnya (see August 28, 2001). RFU chief Dave Frasca was to attend the meeting, but is called away at the last minute. According to Bowman, who is already very familiar with the facts in this case, Maltbie is adamant that there is not enough evidence to issue the warrant. Bowman agrees, saying that the evidence fails to implicate Moussaoui as an agent of a foreign power. The FBI thus abandons the effort to obtain a FISA warrant and begins planning his deportation (see (August 30-September 10, 2001)). [US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 164-6, 168 pdf file; US Department of Justice, 3/1/2006 pdf file]

Entity Tags: Rita Flack, Marion (“Spike”) Bowman, FBI Headquarters, FBI Minnesota field office, Radical Fundamentalist Unit, Michael Maltbie, National Security Law Unit

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline
January 10, 2003: Government Employees Responsible for 9/11 Failures Are Rewarded and Promoted
Edit event

FBI Director Robert Mueller personally awards Marion (Spike) Bowman with a presidential citation and cash bonus of approximately 25 percent of his salary. [Salon, 3/3/2003] Bowman, head of the FBI’s national security law unit and the person who refused to seek a special warrant for a search of Zacarias Moussaoui’s belongings before the 9/11 attacks (see August 28, 2001), is among nine recipients of bureau awards for “exceptional performance.” The award comes shortly after a 9/11 Congressional Inquiry report saying Bowman’s unit gave Minneapolis FBI agents “inexcusably confused and inaccurate information” that was “patently false.” [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 12/22/2002] Bowman’s unit was also involved in the failure to locate 9/11 hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi after their names were put on a watch list (see August 28-29, 2001). In early 2000, the FBI acknowledged serious blunders in surveillance Bowman’s unit conducted during sensitive terrorism and espionage investigations, including agents who illegally videotaped suspects, intercepted e-mails without court permission, and recorded the wrong phone conversations. [Associated Press, 1/10/2003] As Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) and others have pointed out, not only has no one in government been fired or punished for 9/11, but several others have been promoted: [Salon, 3/3/2003]

- Richard Blee, chief of Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, was made chief of the CIA’s new Kabul station in December 2001 (see December 9, 2001), where he aggressively expanded the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program (see Shortly After December 19, 2001). Blee was the government’s main briefer on al-Qaeda threats in the summer of 2001, but failed to mention that one of the 9/11 hijackers was in the US (see August 22-September 10, 2001).

- In addition to Blee, the CIA also promoted his former director for operations at Alec Station, a woman who took the unit’s number two position. This was despite the fact that the unit failed to put the two suspected terrorists on the watch list (see August 23, 2001). “The leaders were promoted even though some people in the intelligence community and in Congress say the counterterrorism unit they ran bore some responsibility for waiting until August 2001 to put the suspect pair on the interagency watch list.” CIA Director George Tenet has failed to fulfill a promise given to Congress in late 2002 that he would name the CIA officials responsible for 9/11 failures. [New York Times, 5/15/2003]
bullet Pasquale D’Amuro, the FBI’s counterterrorism chief in New York City before 9/11, was promoted to the bureau’s top counterterrorism post. [Time, 12/30/2002]

- FBI Supervisory Special Agent Michael Maltbie, who removed information from the Minnesota FBI’s application to get the search warrant for Moussaoui, was promoted to field supervisor and goes on to head the Joint Terrorism Task Force at the FBI’s Cleveland office. [Salon, 3/3/2003; Newsday, 3/21/2006]

- David Frasca, head of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit, is “still at headquarters,” Grassley notes. [Salon, 3/3/2003] The Phoenix memo, which was addressed to Frasca, was received by his unit and warned that al-Qaeda terrorists could be using flight schools inside the US (see July 10, 2001 and July 27, 2001 and after). Two weeks later Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested while training to fly a 747, but Frasca’s unit was unhelpful when local FBI agents wanted to search his belongings—a step that could have prevented 9/11 (see August 16, 2001 and August 20-September 11, 2001). “The Phoenix memo was buried; the Moussaoui warrant request was denied.” [Time, 5/27/2002] Even after 9/11, Frasca continued to “[throw] up roadblocks” in the Moussaoui case. [New York Times, 5/27/2002]

- Dina Corsi, an intelligence operations specialist in the FBI’s bin Laden unit in the run-up to 9/11, later became a supervisory intelligence analyst. [US Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 279-280 pdf file; CNN, 7/22/2005] Corsi repeatedly hampered the investigation of Almihdhar and Alhazmi in the summer of 2001 (see June 11, 2001, June 12-September 11, 2001, Before August 22, 2001, August 27-28, 2001, August 28, 2001, August 28-29, 2001, and (September 5, 2001)).

- President Bush later names Barbara Bodine the director of Central Iraq shortly after the US conquest of Iraq. Many in government are upset about the appointment because of her blocking of the USS Cole investigation, which some say could have uncovered the 9/11 plot (see October 14-Late November, 2000). She did not apologize or admit she was wrong. [Washington Times, 4/10/2003] However, she is fired after about a month, apparently for doing a poor job.

- An FBI official who tolerates penetration of the translation department by Turkish spies and encourages slow translations just after 9/11 was promoted (see March 22, 2002). [CBS News, 10/25/2002]

Entity Tags: Barbara Bodine, George W. Bush, Charles Grassley, David Frasca, Central Intelligence Agency, Khalid Almihdhar, Michael Maltbie, Dina Corsi, Marion (“Spike”) Bowman, Robert S. Mueller III, Pasquale D’Amuro, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Richard Blee

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

February 25, 2003: Senate Report Finds FBI, Justice Department Misuse FISA
Edit event

The Senate Judiciary Committee issues an interim report titled “FISA Implementation Failures” that finds the FBI has mishandled and misused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in its anti-terrorism measures. The report is written by Arlen Specter (R-PA), Charles Grassley (R-IA), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT). [US Congress, 2/2003] Committee chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) not only refused to take part in the report, he issues a letter protesting the report’s findings. Other committee members were invited to take part in drafting the report, but none did so. [Salon, 3/3/2003] Specter says just after the report is issued, “The lack of professionalism in applying the law has been scandalous. The real question is if the FBI is capable of carrying out a counterintelligence effort.” According to the report, both the FBI and the Justice Department routinely employ excessive secrecy, suffer from inadequate training, weak information analysis, and bureaucratic bottlenecks, and will stifle internal dissent to excess as part of their usage of the expanded powers provided under FISA. The report uses as a case study the instance of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui (see August 16, 2001), who stands accused of conspiring with the 9/11 hijackers. FBI officials in Washington impeded efforts by its agents in Minneapolis, most notably former FBI agent Coleen Rowley, to secure a FISA warrant that would have allowed those agents to search Moussaoui’s laptop computer and belongings before the attack. [US Congress, 2/2003; Associated Press, 2/25/2003] “September 11 might well have been prevented,” says Specter. “What are they doing now to prevent another 9/11?” Grassley adds that in closed Senate hearings, they learned that two supervisors who handled the case did not understand the basic elements of FISA, and a senior FBI attorney could not provide the legal definition of “probable cause,” a key element needed to obtain a FISA warrant. [Associated Press, 2/25/2003] “I hate to say this,” Leahy observes, “but we found that the FBI is ill-equipped” to conduct surveillance on those in the United States possibly plotting terrorist acts on behalf of foreign powers. [Salon, 3/3/2003]

Lack of Cooperation from FBI, Justice Department - The report says that neither the FBI nor the Justice Department were cooperative with the Judiciary Committee in the committee’s efforts to investigate either agency’s actions under FISA, routinely delaying their responses to Congressional inquiries and sometimes ignoring them altogether. The report says that perhaps the most troubling of its findings is “the lack of accountability that has permeated the entire application procedure.” The report notes that although Congressional oversight is critical to ensure a transparent, effective usage of FISA powers (augmented under the USA Patriot Act) that do not stray from legal boundaries, such oversight has been discouraged by both the FBI and the Justice Department. [US Congress, 2/2003] The Justice Department dismisses the report as “old news.” [Patrick Leahy, 2/27/2003] Grassley says, “I can’t think of a single person being held accountable anywhere in government for what went on and what went wrong prior to Sept. 11. It seems that nobody in government makes any mistakes anymore.” [Salon, 3/3/2003]

Spark for New Legislation - The three senators use the report as a springboard to introduce a bill, the “Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act,” which will allow Congress to more closely oversee oversee FBI surveillance of Americans and government surveillance of public libraries, would supervise FISA usage in criminal cases, and disclose the secret rules of the FISA court to Congress. [Associated Press, 2/25/2003] Even though all three senators support a lowering of the standards by which a FISA warrant can be issued, the American Civil Liberties Union says it supports the bill, with reservations. “There’s a lot of concern in this country that, especially with the USA PATRIOT Act, FISA has become a massive tool for secret surveillance,” says ACLU lawyer Timothy Edgar. “One way to assuage those concerns—or show that they’re true—is to have more reporting.” Edgar says that the ACLU worries about the lowering of the standards for such warrants, but as long as the bill implement. [Salon, 3/3/2003] The question of the bill becomes moot, however, as it will never make it out of committee. [US Congress - Senate Judiciary Committee, 3/2003]

Entity Tags: USA Patriot Act, Robert S. Mueller III, Tim Edgar, Patrick J. Leahy, Senate Judiciary Committee, Marion (“Spike”) Bowman, Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice, American Civil Liberties Union, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Arlen Specter, Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act, Charles Grassley, Zacarias Moussaoui

Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
May 20, 2008: Justice Department: CIA, Military Interrogation Techniques Amount to ‘Borderline Torture’
Edit event

The Department of Justice (DOJ) releases a long-anticipated report on the alleged torture and abuse of terrorist suspects in US custody. The report was spurred by a Congressional request after Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests showed that FBI agents at Guantanamo had raised concerns about CIA- and military-conducted interrogations. The report identifies then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice as a recipient of complaints of torture. [American Civil Liberties Union, 5/20/2008] The report, issued by DOJ Inspector General Glenn Fine, shows that CIA officials regularly ignored DOJ warnings that the interrogation tactics they were using amounted to “borderline torture.” The report also concludes that the Defense Department is ultimately responsible for how prisoners in military custody are being treated. As a result, the report finds no reason to bring criminal complaints against CIA officials or interrogators.

'Seven Months of Foot-Dragging' - The report documents what CBS News calls “seven months of foot-dragging” by the Pentagon, which attempted to water down the report. Failing that, the report cites numerous instances where Pentagon officials attempted to redact information in the report from public view. The report is lightly redacted.

FBI Praised for Legal, Non-Coercive Interrogation Techniques - The report generally praises the FBI’s own interrogation efforts, methods, and results. It confirms that when CIA officials became impatient with what they were calling “throwaway results” by FBI interrogators, particularly in the case of Abu Zubaida (see April - June 2002), the CIA took over interrogations of prisoners such as Zubaida and began using harsh, torturous techniques. The FBI pulled its agents from the ongoing interrogations, refusing to participate in what it considered to be illegal actions (see May 13, 2004). (In 2009, a former FBI interrogator will confirm that the FBI gathered far more useful information from its non-coercive techniques than the CIA did with its “borderline torture” methods—see Late March through Early June, 2002 and April 22, 2009.) [CBS News, 5/20/2008; Newsweek, 5/20/2008; American Civil Liberties Union, 5/20/2008]

Witnesses to Torture - However, the report makes clear that FBI agents witnessed harsh interrogations that may have constituted torture at three locations—Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison, Afghanistan’s Bagram Air Force Base facility, and Guantanamo Bay. FBI agents are explicitly banned from using brutality, physical violence, intimidation, or other means of causing duress when interviewing suspects. Instead, the FBI generally tries to build a rapport with suspects to get information. “Beyond any doubt, what they are doing (and I don’t know the extent of it) would be unlawful were these enemy prisoners of war,” one FBI employee, senior FBI lawyer Spike Bowman, reported. Bowman worried that the FBI would be “tarred by the same brush,” when asked whether the FBI should refer the matter to the Defense Department Inspector General, and added, “Were I still on active duty, there is no question in my mind that it would be a duty to do so.” The report cites two FBI agents at Guantanamo who “had concerns not only about the proposed techniques but also about the glee with which the would-be [military] participants discussed their respective roles in carrying out these techniques, and the utter lack of sophistication and circus-like atmosphere within this interrogation strategy session.” [CBS News, 5/20/2008; American Civil Liberties Union, 5/20/2008]

Blocking Access to Zubaida - CIA general counsel John Rizzo refused to let DOJ investigators interview Zubaida for the report. The CIA has admitted that Zubaida was waterboarded (see Mid-May, 2002, March 2002 and April - June 2002). The report says that the CIA’s denial of access to Zubaida was “unwarranted,” and “hampered” the investigation, and contrasts the CIA’s actions with those of the Defense Department, which allowed DOJ investigators to interview Guantanamo prisoners. Rizzo told the DOJ that Zubaida “could make false allegations against CIA employees.” [Newsweek, 5/20/2008; American Civil Liberties Union, 5/20/2008]

Split over Al-Khatani - The rift between the CIA and FBI came to a head over the treatment of Mohamed al-Khatani, one of several suspected terrorists accused of being the fabled “20th hijacker” for the 9/11 attacks (see December 2001). According to the report, al-Khatani was abused in a number of ways by military interrogators at Guantanamo; the report cites the use of attack dogs, shackling and stress positions, sexual humiliation, mocking al-Khatani’s religion, and extended sleep deprivation among other tactics. FBI officials complained to the White House after learning that military interrogators forced him to “perform dog tricks,” “be nude in front of a female,” and wear “women’s underwear on his head.” Al-Khatani did eventually “confess” (see July 2002), but FBI officials expressed serious doubts as to the validity of his confession, both in its accuracy and in its admissability in a criminal court. The then-chief of the Guantanamo facility, Major General Geoffrey Miller, ordered a “relentless” and “sustained attack” on al-Khatani. “The plan was to keep him up until he broke,” an FBI agent told superiors, and some of those superiors worried that those techniques would render his confession inadmissible. Al-Khatani was hospitalized for hypothermia during those interrogations. His lawyer, Gitanjali Gutierrez, says her client recently attempted suicide because of his treatment. “The tactics that were used against and the impact, the pain and suffering it caused him and the damage that it caused him does rise to a level of torture,” she says. The government recently dropped all charges against al-Khatani (see October 26, 2006 and January 14, 2009), because if he had been brought to trial, all of the evidence of his treatment would be made public. [CBS News, 5/20/2008; Newsweek, 5/20/2008; American Civil Liberties Union, 5/20/2008]

Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Glenn Fine, John Rizzo, Marion (“Spike”) Bowman, Gitanjali Gutierrez, Geoffrey D. Miller, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Condoleezza Rice, Abu Zubaida, Mohamed al-Khatani, Central Intelligence Agency, US Department of Defense

Timeline Tags: Torture of US Captives







WaPo link is dead, so....
https://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_011303_911.html

Senator wants FBI to explain bonus for official in 9/11 case

Washington Times 01/13/03: Jerry Seper

Original Link: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030111-10797061.htm

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has been asked by a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to justify an award he gave to an FBI official who refused requests by Minneapolis agents for a warrant to search the computer of terror suspect Zacarias Moussaoui.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, described as "shocking" Mr. Mueller's decision to give the Presidential Rank of Meritorious Service award to Marion "Spike" Bowman, head of the FBI's national security law unit.

"By granting this award and a monetary bonus, you are sending the wrong signal to those agents who fought � sometimes against senior FBI bureaucrats at headquarters � to prevent the [September 11] attacks," Mr. Grassley said in a letter Thursday to Mr. Mueller.

FBI agents in Minneapolis, advised that Moussaoui, 33, a French Moroccan, was seeking flight lessons, had sought a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to search his computer, but FBI officials in Washington refused, saying there was insufficient probable cause.

The agents had gathered information, including intelligence from officials overseas, that Moussaoui was tied to terrorism suspects. He was detained a month before the September 11 attacks after officials at a Minneapolis flight school called authorities when he offered to pay cash to learn how to fly a Boeing jetliner.

A senior FBI agent in Minneapolis later complained in a letter to Mr. Mueller that bureau executives in Washington had blocked the Moussaoui investigation because they did not understand the significance of his arrest.

Agent Coleen Rowley, chief principal legal assistant, said the agents faced a "roadblock" when they sought the Moussaoui search warrant, and they became so frustrated at the lack of response that they sought to bypass the chain of command and notify the CIA directly � but were reprimanded.

Mr. Mueller has told reporters that lawyers at FBI headquarters found insufficient probable cause and denied the request. He has since referred the matter to the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General for review.

Moussaoui was indicted in December by a federal grand jury in Alexandria on six counts of conspiracy. Four of the counts could result in the death penalty.

The award was given to Mr. Bowman during a ceremony on Dec. 4 in Des Moines, Iowa, which recognized "exceptional performance" by nine senior managers. In a statement, Mr. Mueller said those honored "are strongly linked to our counterterrorism efforts," citing investigations into the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa and the USS Cole, as well as the September 11 attacks.

The awards included cash bonuses of between 20 percent or 35 percent of each recipient's base salary.

The Judiciary Committee has been investigating FISA problems at the FBI, including holding closed hearings where Mr. Bowman and others were questioned about the Moussaoui case.

Mr. Grassley said a 26-page electronic communication from the Minneapolis agents contained information that "a reasonable person would have concluded" was sufficient to obtain a FISA warrant.

He said the application should have gone forward to the Justice Department and the FISA court.

Instead, he said, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Michael Maltbie concluded there was not enough information and that Mr. Bowman agreed, although he was aware Mr. Maltbie had "removed certain information before making a presentation of questionable accuracy and length to the national security law unit."

Mr. Grassley said if the application had gone forward and a warrant issued, the agents would have found information in Moussaoui's belongings linking him both to a major financier of the hijacking plot and to an al Qaeda boss who met with at least two other hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials.

"You have given an award and extra money to a bureaucrat at headquarters who is seen by many as having stymied the work of field agents," he said.

In the letter, Mr. Grassley asked for information on how and why Mr. Bowman was selected for the award and how much money he received because of it. Mr. Grassley gave the director until Jan. 27 to respond.





FBI head who missed 9/11 signs honored

Jan 9, 2003 0

WASHINGTON (AP) — An FBI supervisor whose headquarters unit denied a pre-Sept. 11 search warrant against Zacarias Moussaoui has won a presidential citation and large cash bonus, incentives the agency's congressional critics say reward incompetence.

The FBI's deputy general counsel, Marion "Spike" Bowman, was among nine current and former FBI officials who last month received a Presidential Rank Award for career senior executives, which carries with it a large cash bonus of 20 percent to 30 percent of an annual salary.

Bowman, head of the FBI's National Security Law Unit, was praised for efforts to attract within the FBI "a staff of attorneys to examine diverse and highly complex issues for which little or no formal legal education has been available." FBI Director Robert Mueller recommended to the White House that Bowman receive the award.

The decision roiled FBI critics who believe Bowman's lawyers improperly rejected a search warrant request by FBI agents in Minnesota investigating Moussaoui in August 2001. Bowman, who declined to comment Thursday, maintains there never was enough evidence for such a warrant under the guidelines of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

An FBI spokesman also declined Thursday to comment on Bowman's selection for the award, or specify the amount of Bowman's cash bonus.

Sen. Charles "Chuck" Grassley, R-Iowa, complained in a letter to the FBI director, "You are sending the wrong signal to those agents who fought — sometimes against senior FBI bureaucrats at headquarters — to prevent the attacks."

Grassley asked Mueller to explain in writing his decision to nominate Bowman. He told Mueller that Senate testimony by Bowman during a closed Judiciary Committee hearing in July raised serious question about the competence of lawyers in the unit.

Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Intelligence Committee during its oversight investigation of the FBI, complained last month — just days before Bowman won the award — that Bowman's law unit provided "inexcusably confused and inaccurate information" to FBI investigators in Minneapolis during the Moussaoui case.

Shelby said in an 84-page report that the FBI unit's advice turned out to be "patently false" and led agents in Minnesota on a "wild goose chase for nearly three weeks."

On Thursday, Shelby said the award showed "no accountability for poor performance at the bureau …They continue to reward bad behavior, and the results speak for themselves."

The Senate investigation also criticized Bowman's unit for blocking an urgent request on Aug. 29, 2001, by FBI agents in New York to begin searching for Khalid Almihdar, one of the hijackers on the American Airlines flight that crashed into the Pentagon.

An FBI agent, who wasn't identified publicly, testified that Bowman's lawyers decided information tying Almihdar to terrorism had been obtained through intelligence channels and thus could not legally be used in a criminal investigation.

"Some day, someone will die … and the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems," the agent wrote in a hauntingly prescient e-mail to FBI headquarters. He said he hoped that Bowman's law unit "will stand behind their decisions then."

Although the U.S. indictment of Moussaoui does not directly tie him to the 19 hijackers, prosecutors disclosed months ago that Moussaoui had called a phone number written on a business card recovered from the wreckage of one of the hijacked flights.

Bowman's law unit employs about 15 specialized lawyers to offer advice for FBI agents about applying the powerful 1978 surveillance law during terrorism and espionage investigations. The unit approves or rejects requests for secret surveillance warrants in such cases, then forwards its approvals to the Justice Department. Lawyers there review the FBI requests and can deny them outright or seek final approval for a warrant from a U.S. judge.

Bowman also headed the law unit in early 2000, when the FBI acknowledged serious blunders in surveillance it conducted during sensitive terrorism and espionage investigations. Among the problems, outlined in an April 2000 memorandum, were agents who illegally videotaped suspects, intercepted e-mails without court permission and recorded the wrong phone conversations.

Those mistakes extended beyond those criticized in a rare public decision last summer by the secretive U.S. court that oversees the surveillance warrants. The court's decision was later overturned, but it admonished the FBI for providing inaccurate information in warrant applications.

The law unit also has acknowledged, in a separate internal memo, that FBI agents mistakenly intercepted e-mails of innocent citizens during an investigation in Denver by its Osama bin Laden Unit and International Terrorism Operations Section.

It indicated the FBI incorrectly used its "Carnivore" Internet surveillance software, now called "DCS-1000," and captured too many e-mails. That memo's author wrote to Bowman that describing an oversight official at the Justice Department as unhappy about the incident "would be an understatement of incredible proportions."

— Arizona Daily Sun





https://www.linkedin.com/in/spike-bowman-71aa944

Spike Bowman

Distinguished Fellow, U. Va. Law

Washington D.C. Metro Area
Government Administration

Current

George Washington University

Previous

ONCIX, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Director of National Intelligence

Education

The George Washington University Law School

Recommendations 1 person has recommended Spike
500+
connections
View Spike’s full profile. It's free!
Your colleagues, classmates, and 500 million other professionals are on LinkedIn.
View Spike’s Full Profile
Summary

Previously Chief, Law and Policy, National Security Branch, Senior Counsel (National Security Law), Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retired Captain, U.S. Navy.

Extensive experience with espionage, economic espionage and terrorism.


Adjunct professor, The George Washington University
Distinguished Fellow, University of Virginia College of Law

Specialties: Specialist, National Security Law, International Law
Experience

George Washington University
Adjunct Professor
George Washington University
September 2003 – Present (14 years 1 month)
Deputy, National Counterintelligence Executive
ONCIX
May 2007 – January 2009 (1 year 9 months)
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Deputy, National Counterintelligence Executive
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
May 2007 – January 2009 (1 year 9 months)
Deputy, National Counterintelligence Executive
Director of National Intelligence
2007 – January 2009 (2 years)
Deputy, National Counterintelligence Executive
ODNI
2007 – 2008 (1 year)
Senior Fellow
National Defense University
2006 – 2007 (1 year)
FBI
Senior Counsel, National Security Law
FBI
July 1995 – July 2006 (11 years 1 month)

Advised on all Counterinteligence and Counterterrorism investigations.

I am also a retired U.S. Navy Captain. I was a naval intelligence officer sent to law school by the Navy.
Seniior Counsel, Nat'l Sec. Law
FBI Office of the General Counsel
1995 – 2006 (11 years)
Deputy General Counsel
Federal Bureau of Investigation
1995 – 2006 (11 years)
US Navy
Captain
US Navy
1968 – 1995 (27 years)
Captain
Navy JAG at US Navy
1968 – 1995 (27 years)
United States Navy
Captain
United States Navy
1968 – 1995 (27 years)

Skills

National SecurityCounterterrorismCounterintelligenceInternational LawHomeland SecurityDefenseForeign PolicyPolicyEnforcementPrivate InvestigationsNavyGovernmentIntelligence AnalysisInternational SecurityIntelligenceSee 35+

How's this translation?

Great•Has errors

Education

The George Washington University Law School
The George Washington University Law School
LL.M., International Law
1982 – 1983

Graduated "With Highest Honors"
University of Idaho College of Law
University of Idaho College of Law
JD, Law
1974 – 1976

Graduated "Cum Laude"

Activities and Societies: Comments Editor, University of Idaho Law Review
University of Wisconsin-Madison
University of Wisconsin-Madison
MA, History of American Foreign Policy
1966 – 1968
Willamette University
Willamette University
BA, History and Political Science
1962 – 1966

Honoraries: Pi Gamma Mu
Sigma Delta Chi

Activities and Societies: Sigma Alpha Epsilon

Recommendations

A preview of what LinkedIn members have to say about Spike:

Spike Bowman taught me how to be a national security lawyer at the FBI and has been a trusted friend and mentor ever since. Spike is a modest hero whose actions over these past several decades have greatly contributed to our national security.

See more

Sign up to see who recommended Spike
Groups

ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security
ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security
The Intelligence Community
The Intelligence Community
CyberSecurity Law, Policy, and Technology
CyberSecurity Law, Policy, and Technology
U.S. Department of Justice (Unofficial)
U.S. Department of Justice (Unofficial)
Social/Behavioral Science & Security
Social/Behavioral Science & Security
Journal of National Security Law & Policy
Journal of National Security Law & Policy
INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY
INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY
See 1 more

View Spike’s full profile to...

See who you know in common
Get introduced
Contact Spike directly



https://elliott.gwu.edu/part-time-faculty-b

Marion Bowman

Image

M.E (Spike) Bowman: Professorial Lecturer
M. E. (Spike) Bowman is a specialist in national security affairs. He was most recently the Deputy, National Counterintelligence Executive. Previously, he was Senior Research Fellow at the National Defense University (Center for Technology and National Security Policy). He is retired from the Senior Executive Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation where he served successively as Deputy General Counsel (National Security Law) Senior Counsel for National Security Law and Director, Intelligence Issues and Policy Group (National Security Branch). He is a former intelligence officer, an international lawyer and a recognized specialist in national security law with extensive experience in espionage and terrorism investigations. In addition to national security experience he is a retired U.S. Navy Captain who has served as Head of International Law at the Naval War College, as a diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in Rome, Italy and as Chief of Litigation for the U.S. Navy. Mr. Bowman is a graduate of Willamette University (B.A.), the University of Wisconsin (M.A.), the University of Idaho (J.D., Cum Laude) and The George Washington University (LL.M., International Law and Comparative Legal Systems, With Highest Honors).
Email: mebowman@gwu.edu
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 5497
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby elfismiles » Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:08 pm

Image


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=023fuqMysU4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3noExmsCRyg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Moz8hs2lJik


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uKqWeZ4LEs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS4254fSZ9A

elfismiles » 10 Sep 2016 22:05 wrote::clown

SEE IT: Texas mattress store blasted for tone-deaf ‘Twin Tower Sale’ commercial, days before 9/11
BY DENIS SLATTERY
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Thursday, September 8, 2016, 7:09 PM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZmM-2gj5Gc

A Texas mattress store made a mockery of the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center with a nauseating advertisement on social media.

Miracle Mattress of San Antonio promoted their upcoming “Twin Tower Sale” with a tasteless video featuring two stacks of mattresses that tumble over.

The tower-like piles, one featuring an American flag flying near the top, are toppled by a pair of smiling employees.

Image
Miracle Mattress of San Antonio promoted their upcoming “Twin Tower Sale” with a tasteless video featuring two stacks of mattresses that tumble over. (MIRACLE MATTRESS)

The appalling 21-second spot ends with store manager Cherise Bonanno shrieking and turning to the camera to deadpan, “We’ll never forget.”

Walmart builds tasteless 9/11 tribute display with packs of Coke
The ad for the sale, which offers any size mattress for the price of a twin, was removed from the store’s Facebook page Thursday, as hundreds of horrified viewers condemned the tone-deaf video.

The store should have forgotten to make this ad in the first place. (MIRACLE MATTRESS VIA TWITTER)
“I’ve never done business with you before and I will make sure I never do business with you in the future,” wrote Adrianne Zawadski. “How you could even think for one second that anyone would find this funny or non-offensive is beyond me!”

The company offered a half-hearted apology after the backlash, the Dallas Morning News first reported.

The store apologized Thursday. (MIRACLE MATTRESS VIA TWITTER)
“To all of those who have seen our 9/11 sale. We are very sorry we have offended you. Our intentions were not to hurt anyone at all,” the post read. “Our staff is full of military and some relatives have passed away due to 9/11.”

Long lost iconic flag raised on 9/11 reemerges
“Too bad you can't apologize to the men and woman that died on 9/11, many that I worked with,” wrote Scott Alan. “I’ll be forwarding this to every police and fire agency in your area so they can see what your all about.”

“You’re sorry you offended me? That’s not an apology I accept,” wrote Heather English. “Apologizing for creating it in the first place would be a start. Admitting you were WRONG for creating it is another step. There will never be an appropriate time to mock 9/11, and to do it to promote mattress sales?! Are you kidding me?”

Sunday will be the 15th anniversary of the worst terror attack on American soil.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2783896
“Mass shootings and mass burnings,” Pyne says. “Welcome to the new America.”
The Terrifying Science Behind California’s Massive Camp Fire - WIRED


AnomalyRadio.com
Streaming Since Last Century
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8298
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby 82_28 » Tue Sep 11, 2018 5:03 pm

Sweet christ! Who does that?
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11026
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby MacCruiskeen » Tue Sep 11, 2018 6:48 pm

From Edward Curtin's review of Griffin & Woodworth's new book 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation:

[...]

As a sociologist who teaches research methods and does much research, I find the Consensus Panel’s method exemplary and their findings accurate. They have unmasked a monstrous lie. It is so ironic that such serious scholars, who question and research 9/11, have been portrayed as irrational and ignorant “conspiracy theorists” by people whose thinking is magical, illogical, and pseudo-scientific in the extreme.

A review is no place to go into all the details of this book, but I will give a few examples of the acumen of the Panel’s findings.

As a grandson of a Deputy Chief of the New York Fire Department (343 firefighters died on 9/11), I find it particularly despicable that the government agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), that was charged with investigating the collapse of the Towers and Building 7, would claim that no one gave evidence of explosions in the Twin Towers, when it is documented by the fastidious researcher Graeme MacQueen, a member of The 9/11 Consensus Panel, that over 100 firefighters who were at the scene reported hearing explosions in the towers. One may follow end-note 22 to MacQueen’s research and his sources that are indisputable. There are recordings.

On a connected note, the official account claims that there were widespread infernos in the South Tower that prevented firefighters from ascending to the 78th floor. Such a claim would support the notion that the building could have collapsed as a result of fires caused by the plane crashing into the building. But as 9/11 Unmasked makes clear, radio tapes of firefighters ascending to the 78th floor and saying this was not so, prove that “there is incontrovertible evidence that the firefighter teams were communicating clearly with one another as they ascended WTC” and that there were no infernos to stop them, as they are recorded saying. They professionally went about their jobs trying to save people.

Then the South Tower collapsed and so many died. But it couldn’t have collapsed from “infernos” that didn’t exist. Only explosives could have brought it down.

A reader can thus pick up this book, check out that section, and use common sense and elementary logic to reach the same conclusion. And by reaching that conclusion and going no further in the book, the entire official story of 9/11 falls apart.

[...]

http://edwardcurtin.com/the-fakest-fake ... woodworth/


This I had never heard before:

Or one can delve further, let’s say by dipping into the official claim that a domestic airline attack on the Pentagon was not expected. Opening to page 78, the reader can learn that “NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski was warned of the Pentagon attack by an intelligence officer,” who specified the illogical spot where the attack would happen shortly before it did. In Miklaszewski’s words, “And then he got very close to me, and, almost silent for a few seconds, he leaned in and said, ‘This attack was so well coordinated that if I were you, I would stay off the E Ring – where our NBC office was – the outer ring of the Pentagon for the rest of the day, because we’re next.’” The authors say correctly, “The intelligence officer’s apparent foreknowledge was unaccountably specific.” For if a terrorist were going to fly a plane into Pentagon, the most likely spot would be to dive into the roof where many people might be killed, including top brass and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. To make an impossibly acrobatic maneuver to fly low into an outside wall would make no sense. And for the government to claim that this impossible maneuver was executed by the alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour, a man who according to documentation couldn’t even pilot a small plane, is absurd. But the intelligence officer knew what would happen, and the reader can learn this, and marvel.

http://edwardcurtin.com/the-fakest-fake ... woodworth/


Is NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski still alive? Reachable for questioning? Not that anyone will bother trying, and in any case Mr Miklaszewski's memory will undoubtedly fail him if he knows what's good for his health.
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 9375
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby DrEvil » Tue Sep 11, 2018 7:05 pm

^^He's still alive, but retired. I found two twitter accounts with his name, but both went silent in 2010. Here's the (or at least a) video where he mentions the intelligence officer:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uft90QQfuFU
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 2344
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Tue Sep 11, 2018 7:08 pm

"Mik" was reporting live for the Today Show on September 11, 2001 when a plane hit the Pentagon, where his office was then based.


He is still alive, per the internets. On twitter, he died in 2010, but on NBC, he retired in 2016.

The Dulles Boys key insight was that just buying out every English Major in the game meant you could write history, whole cloth. I think that is the source of much of the derangement of our language you're lamenting (rightly, mind) in the adjacent "Conspiracy Theory" thread. A big problem is that 1) all of the early "insider" sources were works, ops, plants, goons, the well was poisoned from the start, the post WW-II mythologizing, the sheer momentum of consumer technocracy convenience & wonder washing history away, and 2) as the 30's-40's-50's recedes from memory and becomes mere aesthetic, contradictory accounts have disappeared for hugely important veins of our mutual history as an Anglo-American two headed empire.

Contemporary awareness is a long-running prestige TV favorite that started with a lurch during a dimly remembered 60's. There are lots of color restorations available for the more popular shows. So much was already obscured.

Cheers to everyone else processing another bummer of an anniversary and, perhaps, more anthropology than you'd like or need on a f'ing Tuesday.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10178
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 26 guests