F.B.I. Agent's Letter to Director, February 26, 2003

Forums: North America
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

Full Text of F.B.I. Agent's Letter to Director Mueller

Following is the full text from a Feb. 26 letter to Director Robert S. Mueller III of the F.B.I. from Special Agent Coleen Rowley of the bureau's field office in Minneapolis...

...I would implore you to step out of this pressure-cooker for a few minutes and consider the following:

1) The FBI is apparently the source for the public statement that there are 5,000 al-Qaeda terrorists already in the U.S. I would ask you to inquire as to whether this figure is based on any hard data...

2) What is the FBI's evidence with respect to a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Polls show that Americans are completely confused about who was responsible for the suicidal attacks on 9-11 with many blaming Iraq. And it is clear that this impression has been fostered by many in the Administration...

3) If, as you have said, "the prevention of another terrorist attack remains the FBI's top priority," why is it that we have not attempted to interview Zacarias Moussaoui, the only suspect in U.S. custody charged with having a direct hand in the horror of 9-11?...

4) It is not clear that you have been adequately apprized of the potential damage to our liaison relationships with European intelligence agencies that is likely to flow from the growing tension over Iraq between senior U.S. officials and their counterparts in key West European countries...

5)...perhaps you can caution senior officials about the downside to alarming the public unless there is adequate reason to do so...

6) The vast majority of the one thousand plus persons "detained" in the wake of 9-11 did not turn out to be terrorists... ...after 9-11, Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seem to be essentially PR purposes...

7)... I believe it would be prudent to be on guard against the possibility that the looser "preemptive strike" rationale being applied to situations abroad could migrate back home, fostering a more permissive attitude towards shootings by law enforcement officers in this country.

8)...I would suggest that present circumstances vis-a-vis Iraq are very analagous, and that you consider sharing with senior administration officials the important lessons learned by the FBI at Waco...

How do you feel about this letter?

CLICK TO READ FULL ARTICLE

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,789 • Replies: 11

No top replies

I think SA Rowley found that she liked the limelight, and would like to replace Director Muller as head of the FBI. Her earlier violation of the Chain-of-Command dealt with things within hepurviewew as a Special Agent. That earlier breach of the Chain-of-Command was kept in-house.

I can't imagine that all the levels of command jumped a few years ago were exactly happy to be cut out of the information loop. However, Agent Rowley's direct superior may have been so adamant against forwarding the letter as to justify violation of the Chain-of-Command. Properly, Agent Rowley should have forwarded her letter to her superior's direct superior, not the head of the FBI. That in itself may have tended to undervalue the data that SA Rowley felt so strongly needed to be transmitted. I suspect that Agent Rowley has encountered some ill feelings within the Bureau since her breaking ranks.

This letter is clearly intended for public consumption, and is critical of policies far beyond her rank and grade. The policies and the information on which those policies were forged are better known by the Director than by any Special Agent in the field. If I were the Director, my response to this letter would be to publicly thank the Agent, and then post her to Fairbanks, Alaska assigned to background investigations of applicants for government employment.

0 Replies

"If I were the Director, my response to this letter would be to publicly thank the Agent, and then post her to Fairbanks, Alaska assigned to background investigations of applicants for government employment."
which would most likely result in a media frenzy ending up on the floor of congress greatly exaggerating what would have been a non-issue. as in covering the statue of liberty caused more bruhaha than leaving it alone.

0 Replies

Dys,

There certainly might be a firestorm of media criticism, but organizations (esp. police/militry types of organizations) must maintain discipline and the Chain-of-Command. Agent Rowley is not just an annoyance, her behavior threatens the effectiveness of the whole organization. Even a written reprimand in her service jacket is likely to be made a public issue.

Doing backgrounds in Fairbanks is good, useful work that must be done. Agent Rowley is qualified, but not overqualified to do the work, and that is what she was hired to do. On the other hand, the whole Bureau will be reminded of their proper place within the whole. Agent Rowley isn't The Terrorism Expert, only a field agent who happened to stumble over some data that probably should have caused concern prior to 9-11.

0 Replies

Asherman, Agent Rowley is a commisioned Agent of the government as opposed to a police/military type. As such her responsiblity to the people of the US is quite different than the folks you are referring to, police/military types.

0 Replies

Asherman i am not commenting on right/wrong just how the media ergo congress would react. the public/congress likes to stage underdog spotlights.

0 Replies

Joanne,

Agent Rowley is a Special Agent of the FBI. That is a police agency, and she is subject to the same discipline required of all agents within the Bureau. Agents are not supposed make public statements that have not been approved by the Bureau. This is an important constraint that can only be justified in the most extreme circumstances, and even then the agent is subject to discipline.

Dys,

I understood your point. However, a subordinate can not be permitted to flout the rules with impunity. Posting this agent to a distant post where they are unlikely to repeat their misbehavior, rather than impose more drastic disciplinary action, is actually pretty light handed. Who is running the Bureau anyway? The press? Some out of office political faction, or the Director who is responsible for adminstering a large and essential agency of government ?

0 Replies

Asherman to be a commission agent of the government is quite different than being a police officer. You cannot even compare the two jobs. A Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation first of all must have a JD, secondly they are considered professional employees. Other FBI Agents are not commissioned and are not required to have a JD. Commissioned agents are allowed to make public issues which they believe are relevant to carrying out their duties as proscribed by law. Commissioned Agents are covered by: LEGISLATION COVERING "WHISTLE BLOWERS'S"

Clearly Collen Rowley, a Special Agent of the FBI and a JD is not comparable to a police officer or a military person enlisted or commissioned.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

I think SA Rowley found that she liked the limelight, and would like to replace Director Muller as head of the FBI. Her earlier violation of the Chain-of-Command dealt with things within hepurviewew as a Special Agent. That earlier breach of the Chain-of-Command was kept in-house.

I can't imagine that all the levels of command jumped a few years ago were exactly happy to be cut out of the information loop. However, Agent Rowley's direct superior may have been so adamant against forwarding the letter as to justify violation of the Chain-of-Command. Properly, Agent Rowley should have forwarded her letter to her superior's direct superior, not the head of the FBI. That in itself may have tended to undervalue the data that SA Rowley felt so strongly needed to be transmitted. I suspect that Agent Rowley has encountered some ill feelings within the Bureau since her breaking ranks.

This letter is clearly intended for public consumption, and is critical of policies far beyond her rank and grade. The policies and the information on which those policies were forged are better known by the Director than by any Special Agent in the field. If I were the Director, my response to this letter would be to publicly thank the Agent, and then post her to Fairbanks, Alaska assigned to background investigations of applicants for government employment.

asherman:
- I've read posts where you reminded us that we, as regular citizens, were not privy to the intel and inner workings that are directing the decision making processes leading us to war. Now you say that Rowley as a Special Agent is not privy to the things the Director is, and therefore her opinions are loess substantial. How can anyone mount an opposition argument to you if you just respond with "you just don't know the real facts?" I believe that anyone with reasonable intellect, determination, and access to internet, news and libraries can come to informed decisions. And myself, being active military I believe I probably can glean information the average joe doesn't come accross. Are you some kind of secret agent or something? Because if you're just a citizen with access to public information, please drop the pretense. You infer that you have inside info about Rowley's motives - self aggrandizement, as opposed to pursuing the public good. How is that?

0 Replies

Sorry - you imply; I infer...

I'm always correcting others about that - darn!

0 Replies

I have some sympathy for Ash's argument about chain-of-command. On the other hand, I have this lingering taste of distrust for some elements of our Federal law enforcement folks. The present Attorney-General behavior tends to feed my distrust.

I have some knowledge of history; so, I watch with interest as the present administration works to shift some responsibilites and funding back to the states. Everything is in flux; who knows what the Federal law enforcement agencies look like in 2-6 more years.

0 Replies

Snood,

You get my opinion. No more, no less. Anyone who knows anything at all about the military will understand the chain-of-command and the need to maintain discipline. Agent Rowley, as a Special Agent of the FBI is subject to the same sort of command structure as anyother police or military organization. What is it likely that she knows that her superiors, right up to the Directer don't know? She blew the whistle in the first instance pretty much the way its supposed to be done. At that time she had information down at the grass-roots level that wasn't getting to the top. This time around, she is spouting off about policy issues that are above her rank and grade. The first instance, the end-run on her superiors was justified, though unrecognized at the time. This time she is only giving her opinion about the policy decisions of her bosses. It takes little imagination to understand the emotional feelings of those she cut out of the loop by going directly to the press.

I deny being anything other than a retired government analyst. I occasionally hear things, but by far most of the knowledge I have is from open sources. My sources are often books and other publications that I've been reading for years, and years. To me it is somewhat surprising that anybody could not know the fundamentals of nuclear weapons and their effects. People have been waging war for thousands of years, and the records of those wars are available to all. The people in all ages and places it seems to me behave in remarkably similar ways. Human motives have remained largely unchanged since we first formed hunting parties. I am a pretty serious historian who thinks he has an inkling of how human events tend to playout.

0 Replies

F.B.I. Agent's Letter to Director, February 26, 2003

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know