Exclusive: Key FBI whistleblower: Had WikiLeaks existed, 9/11, Iraq war ‘could have been prevented’


By Nathan Diebenow
Thursday, December 9th, 2010

A Time Magazine 'Person of the Year' argues WikiLeaks serves the public good

A member of a group of former intelligence professionals that has rallied behind WikiLeaks suggested in a recent interview with Raw Story that the world would be a different and better place had the online secrets outlet come into existence years sooner.

“If there had been a mechanism like Wikileaks, 9/11 could have been prevented,” Coleen Rowley, a former special agent/legal counsel at the FBI's Minneapolis division, told Raw Story in an exclusive interview.

Rowley and her colleague Bogdan Dzakovic, a special agent for the FAA's security division, explained this position in an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times in October. However, they admit no claim to the original idea of an established pro-whistle-blower infrastructure. It's purely the US government's, she said.

"That's not even us," she told Raw Story. "That's not our personal opinion. We’re really reciting the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission that attributed the failures of 9/11 to a failure to share information not only inside agencies, not only between agencies, but with the public and the media."

"People have forgotten that that was the main conclusion of the 9/11 Commission," Rowley added.

"The 9/11 Commission was based on four other major investigation inquiries," she continued "One was called the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry. That started in Jan. 2002. It went on for well over a year. Then I testified to the Judiciary Committee, and they came out with a big long report. That JICI had two reports. It had an early one and a second one. Then, my memo led to an Inspector General which is about a 400-page investigation that Glenn Find did."

WikiLeaks, Rowley argued, is merely implementing that underlying suggestion: to share information for the public good.

Rowley worked closely with those who arrested would-be terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui on an immigration violation weeks before 9/11. She was one of three whistleblowers chosen as "Person of the Year" by TIME magazine.

"One of the reasons why the [website] existed with the 2.5 million documents shared at fairly low levels to even include privates was that was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission – that 9/11 occurred due to a failure to share this information. So they were trying to share things as much as possible," she said.

Rowley continued, "The 9/11 Commission went so far as to say that even little tidbits, even some little things had been made public, like the arrest of Moussaoui had been made public in August, that would have probably served to avert 9/11."

"Even the agents in the Minnesota office were unaware of what was going on. They weren’t told," she noted.

Rowley said she now fears that the federal government will return to its pre-9/11 days of over-compartmentalization of information. She doesn't blame WikiLeaks, though.

Rowley is a member of the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence, an organization made up of former intelligence professionals. They recently signed a joint statement condemning the media attacks against WiikiLeaks, site founder Julian Assange, and their alleged source Pfc. Bradley Manning.

Rowley's support for WikiLeaks stems from its function as an outlet for potential whistle-blowers in the national intelligence section of the federal government who have no avenue to share information without fear of reprisal. Currently, there is no federal law protecting those who would reveal illegalities like fraud, waste, abuse or threats to public safety.

On the point as to whether WikiLeaks has saved lives, Rowley said that it was too early to tell either way. But, she said the site has still filled a necessary role at a time where traditional lines of communication have fallen into disrepair.

"The media used to perform that function 40 years ago when [Daniel] Ellsberg took his Pentagon Papers not only to the New York Times, but 18 other newspapers defied Nixon’s orders and published those Pentagon Papers," she continued. "At about the same time, within a year or two, Woodward and Bernstein were actually investigating the president, and actually got enough evidence amassed to force the president to say that he was not above the law."

While temporary secrecy is necessary and helpful during criminal investigations, Rowley argued, too much secrecy can do much more harm. Dzakovic, for example, found that during an investigation of airport security, his "Red Team" was able to smuggle weapons onto airplanes on 90 percent of their attempts.

"Red Team's" report was ignored and suppressed, Rowley said, ultimately leading airlines to dismiss as too expensive the bolts that could have prevented would-be terrorists from opening a cockpit door.

"You can just see the short term thinking, Rowley said. "If we had more sharing of information – if the public had known about the fact that the airport security was that bad, they would have demanded this to be done. Customers would have demanded it if they had been told the risks they had been facing."

"Of course had [Dzakovic] gotten the information out through a Wikileaks mechanism, the public would have known," she said.

With editing by Stephen C. Webster.

Intelligence Unnecessary

The terrorists had nothing to do with the execution of 9/11.


I didn't vote you down, but I would encourage you to read this:


Your position reflects one of anger over the lies you've been told by the 9/11 Commission, but it's a non sequitur to believe on the basis of (questionable) falsification, for example, by David Ray Griffin, that the hijackers were entirely fictional.

Can you answer these questions, scribbled down by a self-proclaimed 'debunker'?


Now read this again:


Can you answer his questions now? I'd wager you could.

The Story

By intelligence officers focusing too much on their jobs that they were prevented from doing, the whole picture of how the buildings came down which should be the focus of an investigation, becomes less important. It's not clear about the passenger list and the photo of Atta was taken in Portland airport not elsewhere. Many articles show some of the hijackers alive. One summary here:
Pilots for 9/11 truth don't believe the "terrorists" flew the planes, so why focus on their story and grab headlines for that? Then it begs the question if they were on the planes but if global positioning flew them, then whether or not they were on the planes is inconsequential.
The story should focus on what can be proven - the science behind the demolitions and that needs public attention.

The hijackers are dead

The cases you mention refer to alleged identity theft, not actual hijackers presenting themselves alive. Do you understand the difference between identity theft and resurrection?

"Pilots for 9/11 truth don't believe the "terrorists" flew the planes"

Honestly, I don't put too much stake in the opinions of a group that has not only published flawed research (Ask Frank Legge, Warren Stutt, Adam Larson and John Bursill) but has also blown their credibility out of the water with a wide range of other mischief.

"The story should focus on what can be proven - the science behind the demolitions and that needs public attention. "

I'm missing a huge amount of 9/11 research in what you just described as attention deserving. I won't reiterate all that here again, it has been posted to death.

I understand why you would want to focus on controlled demolition though; it absolves you from having to deal with the false dilemma fallacy, because you might think controlled demolition is mutually exclusive with the involvement of hijackers. It is not.

Have you ever read the 9/11 timeline on History Commons?

ETA: I would like to point out that remote control isn't mutually exclusive with hijackers either.


The angle of the planes hitting the WTCs to do the most damage would have been impossible at the speed they were flying for the less than amateur pilots, and even more obvious for the Pentagon - and there is no evidence that they ever entered the cockpits.
Just ask a real pilot.

Real pilot

I've asked Rudi Dekkers, you know, the guy who trained them, and he agrees with you. (Or at least, he has severe doubts whether they could have done it, on the other hand, publicly he's a bit more cautious saying this). Don't forget though, they specifically trained in simulators on high speed turns.

Whether or not the hijackers piloted the planes remains to be seen.

Like I told you in the comment you replied to: hijackers and remote control are not mutually exclusive. This is a false dilemma.

There is evidence they entered the cockpits: from the phone calls. Moreover, to claim that something is false because it hasn't been proven true is the fallacy of the argument of ignorance: this is not a court case, this is historiography. I'm not aiming for acquittal, I'm aiming for historical accuracy.

P.S. the piloting, I'll publish about that at some point in the future.

Show "More then just preventing" by mtorjman

Connect two WikiLeaks "dots"... via Cass Sunstein!

Connect two WikiLeaks "dots"... via Cass Sunstein!

(1) Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs." In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here:


(2) In 2007, Cass Sunstein introduced the world to WikiLeaks in a Washington Post article he wrote:

A Brave New Wikiworld
By Cass R. Sunstein
Saturday, February 24, 2007

In the past year, Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," has been cited four times as often as the Encyclopedia Britannica in judicial opinions, and the number is rapidly growing. In just two years, YouTube has become a household word and one of the world's most successful Web sites. Such astounding growth and success demonstrate society's unstoppable movement toward shared production of information, as diverse groups of people in multiple fields pool their knowledge and draw from each other's resources.


The Central Intelligence Agency disclosed the existence of its top-secret Intellipedia project, based on Wikipedia software (and now containing more than 28,000 pages), in late October. The agency hopes to use dispersed information to reduce the risk of intelligence failures. NASA officials have adopted a wiki site to program NASA software, allowing many participants to make improvements.

In the private domain, businesses are adopting wikis to compile information about products, profits and new developments. The Autism Wiki, produced mostly by adults with autism and Asperger's syndrome, contains material on autism and related conditions. Wikileaks.org, founded by dissidents in China and other nations, plans to post secret government documents and to protect them from censorship with coded software.


Suffice it to say that Havard law faulty are not all they are cracked up to be (neither are FBI agents apparently either)... and at this point, anybody can not see through this WikiLeaks puppet show has an IQ well under 100 or seriously deluded.

Did Cass Sunstein introduce the world to Wikileaks?


(“Revolution through the internet: the new central for revealing documents”)

Belfast Telegraph
“Terror of the silent whistler”

“According to the New Statesman magazine, an online service called Wikileaks will allow you to send emails without having them traced back to you.”

Die Welt
“Stoff für die nächste Verschwörungstheorie; Wikileaks, der jüngste Ableger der Online-Plattform Wikipedia, will mit angeblich konspirativen Dokumenten in der Weltpolitik mitmischen”
(“Food for the next conspiracy theory; Wikileaks, the youngest offshoot of the online platform Wikipedia, wants to join in world politics with allegedly conspiratorial documents”)

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
“Cyber leakers now have a place to go; Web site says goal is better government”

“A new online effort called Wikileaks seeks not only to archive hot tips and documents that reveal government corruption and questionable policies, but also to encourage them.”

The Calgary Herald
“Tattlers using the Internet as a weapon: Websites expose all: from leering men to sub-par service”

“Political whistleblowers, meanwhile, will soon be able to turn to WikiLeaks to anonymously upload documents in an effort to create more transparent governments around the globe.”

Similar articles by the same author, Shannon Proudfoot, but with different titles varying on the same theme, appeared in:
2007-01-22 - The Halifax Daily News
2007-01-22 - Kamloops Daily News
2007-01-22 - The Leader-Post
2007-01-22 - Nanaimo Daily News
2007-01-22 - The Star Phoenix
2007-01-22 - Windsor Star
Government Computer News
“And Another Thing”

“Wikileaks.org has gotten a fair amount of attention already, even though the site is not supposed to go live until March. At heart it would seem a noble effort. But since it would work in the wiki way--except with an encryption protocol to prevent tracing the source of documents--it could be hard to guarantee the validity of posted documents. (It would rely on users to expose fake documents or correct inaccurate ones, a tactic that has worked pretty well for Wikipedia.) It might also be used to make public documents that would be better left secret--say, the identity of an undercover agent or someone in witness protection. Though the site exists, it isn't yet in wiki mode, so we won't know for a while how much good or harm it does. We just hope organizers remember that not everyone always acts in good faith.”

The Age
“Blowing whistles goes online”

“THE freewheeling internet could become even scarier for government regimes, with a new website, Wikileaks, promising to provide a haven for whistleblowers to upload confidential government documents.”

Similar articles by the same author, Asher Moses, appeared in:
2007-01-20 - Sydney Morning Herald

Science Friday
“New Wiki For Online Leaking”

Network World
“Google Earth and 'collateral damage'”

“Horrible idea: Wikileaks, an under-construction Web site that purports to support principled leaking but is actually building a repository of legal, privacy and perhaps national-security disasters waiting to happen.

In a nutshell, Wikileaks will use a wiki to allow anyone -- from the Chinese dissident to the disgruntled/recently fired nincompoop -- to post whatever he or she pleases, safe in the knowledge that their contribution will remain anonymous and intact.

Principled leaking has been a positive force, in large part because standing between the would-be leaker and the public has been a third party -- most often the press -- to make judgments as to whether the benefits of the leak outweigh the societal costs. Perfect? Of course not. But the alternative presented by Wikileaks conjures up images of chaos that are difficult to overstate. (Lawyers, start licking those chops.)”

“Wikileaks part en croisade contre les dictateurs”
(“Wikileaks on a crusade against dictators”)

“Wikileaks reprend le modèle collaboratif qui a fait le succès de l'encyclopédie en ligne Wikipedia.”
(“Wikileaks takes the collaborative model that made the success of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia.”)

University Wire
“Anonymous leaks in the Internet age”

“Reporters' hushed phone conversations with anonymous government and corporate sources may have been the only game in town for news leaks in the past, but a new Web site is angling to change all that. It's Wikileaks.org, and while the site is still in the development stages, it could become for leaks, well, the next Wikipedia.”

Network World
“Bradner: Wikileaks: a site for exposure; Could represent best and the worst of Internet, depending on your point of view”

“Wikileaks has not gone live yet (an example of a leaked document can be found on the Web site), but its creators have received 1.2 million documents already and expect it to be up in the next couple of months. The site will use a Wikipedia-like process of public comment and editing to help weed out false or misleading material. Its creators also hope to avoid legal attacks, at least in the West, by initially focusing on "non-western, authoritarian regimes." It is ready to distribute its software for others to run if Wikileaks gets shut down.”

Victoria Advocate
“EDITORIAL: Dissidents take whistle-blowing global with leaking Web site”

“Organizer James Chen told The Washington Post that the site's goal is to create "an international movement of people who facilitate ethical leaking and open government."

"What conscience cannot contain, and institutional secrecy unjustly conceals, Wikileaks can broadcast to the world," the site claims.

Wikileaks intends to be "an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations."

The Washington Post
“Freedom of Information, the Wiki Way”

“Wikileaks.org is a Web-based way for people with damning, potentially helpful or just plain embarrassing government documents to make them public without leaving fingerprints. Modeled on the participatory, online encyclopedia Wikipedia, the site is expected to go live within the next two months.”

Can A Wiki Force Transparency On Oppressive Regimes?

“Wikileaks to serve as online Deep Throat”

“When Wikileaks.org goes live in the next two months, the Washington Post said the Internet site will serve as a depository for damning government documents.”

Sunday Telegraph
Leakers protected

“LEAKING a sensitive document can be a tricky business, but not for much longer if an online service called WikiLeaks goes ahead.”

Similar articles by (presumably) the same author appeared in:
2007-01-13 - New Scientist

The Calgary Herald
“Whistleblowers will soon have own website”

“A new website called Wikileaks promises to create a forum for anonymous sources to post sensitive documents on the Internet without fear of being identified. The site, www.wikileaks.org, is the collaborative brainchild of an international group of mathematicians, political dissidents and cryptographers from various backgrounds -- many of them Chinese expatriates.”

Similar articles by the same author, Chris Lackner, with varying headlines, appeared in:
2007-01-13 - Edmonton Journal
2007-01-13 - The Leader-Post
2007-01-13 - Nanaimo Daily News
2007-01-13 - Times Colonist
2007-01-13 - The Vancouver Sun
2007-01-13 - Windsor Star

The West Australian
“WikiLeaks website offers home for whistleblowers, no questions asked”

“Whistleblowers will soon be able to leak secrets to a worldwide audience with impunity.
A new website, WikiLeaks, will allow them to publicise sensitive documents anonymously with little chance of being found out and suffering the repercussions that might follow.”

“Cyberdissidence made in China”

“Des dissidents chinois vont lancé un site, WikiLeaks, (…)”
(“Chinese dissidents are going to launch a site, Wikileaks”)

Investor's Business Daily

“A Web site, wikileaks.org, is designed to allow anyone to post documents without being traced. Its primary targets include China, Russia, the Middle East and Africa.”

Agence France Presse
“Des cyberdissidents chinois lancent un site crypté, WikiLeaks”
(“Chinese cyberdissidence launch an encrypted site, Wikileaks”)

“Un responsable de WikiLeaks à Washington, se présentant comme Julian Assange, a déclaré à l'AFP que le groupe espérait être opérationnel en mars.”

“An Wikileaks official in Washington, identifying himself as Julian Assange, told AFP that the group hoped to be operational in March”

Canberra Times

“THE LATEST edition of New Scientist magazine has a story in it with the tantalising headline, ''How to Leak a Secret and Not Get Caught''. The magazine says it may get a lot safer to leak sensitive documents about dodgy behaviour by governments or organisations if a new online service called WikiLeaks goes ahead. Its creators describe WikiLeaks as an ''uncensorable version of Wikipedia''. ''WikiLeaks, which hopes to launch in February, is designed to allow anyone to post documents on the website without the fear of being traced and thrown into jail,'' the magazine reports.”

CBC News
”Website wants to take whistleblowing online”

“Deep Throat may be moving to a new address - online.

A new website that will use Wikipedia's open-editing format is hoping to become a place where whistleblowers can post documents without fear of being traced.

Wikileaks, according to the group's website, will be "an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis.”

The Evening Standard
“Lite bytes; Science news in brief from around the world”

“WHISTLEBLOWERS may soon have an anonymous online outlet to air their concerns, according to New Scientist magazine. WikiLeak is a website being developed by a group of political dissidents, cryptographers and journalists that will allow anyone to post leaked documents on the web without fear of it being traced to them.”

Agence France Presse -- English
“Chinese cyber-dissidents launch WikiLeaks, a site for whistleblowers”

“Chinese dissidents, with the help of powerful encryption software, say they will launch a site designed to let whistleblowers in authoritarian countries post sensitive documents on the Internet without being traced.

"Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal unethical behaviour in their own governments and corporations," says the site WikiLeaks (www.wikileaks.org).

An official for WikiLeaks in Washington, identifying himself as Julian Assange, told AFP on Wednesday that the group hoped to go online from March but had been "discovered" before its launch and was not fully prepared for the publicity it was now receiving.”

Say Anything Blog
“Is Wikileaks A Good Idea?”

“There's a new website out called Wikileaks. It bills itself as "an uncensorable version of WikiPedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis." Basically, what this website offers is a forum where anyone with access to classified government information can make it public without worry for consequences or retribution.”


“A group of Chinese dissidents and technologists from across theworld is designing an "uncensorable" version of Wikipedia to encourage untraceable, mass leaks and analysis of documents from authoritarian regimes, the U.S. government and corporations. Wikileaks.org, still under construction, combines a collaborative "wiki" software interface with cryptographic technologies to hide contributor identities and block censors, said Hanna De Jong, the organization's spokeswoman. The protective programming includes modified versions of the Tor toolset from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, The Free Network Project, PGP and Wikileaks' custom software. Wikileaks' primary targets are closed societies in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. "We also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations," the site reads. A wiki is basically a public Web log that anyone with anInternet browser can add to or modify. Wikipedia is an online, self-evolving encyclopedia updated by a community of users. Wikileaks was founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup techies in the United States, Australia, Europe, South Africa and Taiwan. Its growing advisory board contains representatives from Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, one former U.S. intelligence analyst and cryptographers, De Jong said.

"We are prepared, structurally and technically to deal with all legal attacks," she said.

"In the very unlikely event that we were to face coercion to make the software censorship friendly, there are many others who will continue the work in other jurisdictions," De Jong added. The servers are run by anonymous volunteers, and Wikileaks'software will be disseminated for free, if necessary. Some e-democracy advocates question the value of publishing documents without attribution or authentication.

"The government could be putting up information to discredit dissidents," said Leslie Harris, executive director at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "In an oppressive government, we have no way to know if it's an attempt at disinformation." She also noted the dangers of posting libelous information or sensitive, personal information on an unmediated site.

Harris said she hopes the public will be able to discuss and contextualize the documents on Wikileaks in a manner similar to the way people can make criticisms on blog entries."I think it's very important that there be opportunities for people to discuss whether the document is authentic," she said."You should be able to comment visibly about the document and point people to other documents."Wikileaks recently invited Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy researcher at the Federation of American Scientists, to serve on its advisory board. He publishes the e-mail newsletter,"Secrecy News," which often provides links to hard-to-obtaindocuments. Aftergood said he has not yet decided whether to get involved with the venture. "I still want to see how they launch, what the focus is and if they're putting out good material ... and if the positive outweighs the negative," he said.- By Aliya Sternstein”

As for Sunstein, he almost plagiarized this Time article from two days earlier:

Time, 2007-01-22, "A Wiki for Whistle-Blowers"

Now why did Sunstein initially like Wikileaks? Because of the first paragraph in the piece in Time:

By March, more than one million leaked documents from governments and corporations in Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the former Soviet Bloc will be available online in a bold new collective experiment in whistle-blowing.

That's what Sunstein liked about the idea, wouldn't you think?

Show "no gangs or hired help just pawns un-wit" by mtorjman