So I was going to post this in the anniversary topic but thought it was better not to. I'd like this to be a fairly objective discusion with not much political point scoring attempts or completely off topic comments. Ken said he hopes Osama Bin Ladin is captured:
--------------------
I really don't think that catching Osama Bin Ladin will help things. If anything he will become a martyr and be even more of an inspiration then he is now. Especiallly considering there is basically no evidence to suggest he had any kind of physical role in the organising or funding of the attacks - and knowing the US approach to justice, it seems very unlikely that they would follow international law or even American law in dealing with him. The obvious advantage in capturing him is the presumable large moral lift for many American's and for those involved in the so called "war against terror" - which could prove to be significant - especially for the Republicans hopes of re-election. I guess the symbolism of capturing the head of Al Quida would mean a lot - but in the long term I really don't think it would stop terrorism at all. It's also important to note that most terrorist attacks aren't organised by Al Quida - which is a very small group but by affiliates of Al Quida. The media and politicians specifically blame Al Quida because it gets confusing if every attack is a different group and they don't want to say "it's the arabs" for obvious reasons (like the fact that most of the terrorists are not Arabs, and the racism and counter productive nature of such statements).
Regarding the subject of this topic. I'd say with out any doubts the terrorists are easily winning the "war on terror". I think the 9/11 attacks provoked exactly the reaction they were looking for. Although they lost a sympathetic ally in the Taliban they now have a fairly lawless environment in Afghanistan which means they can continue to operate there. They also had Saddam Huissen removed from government - somebody who was fundamentally opposed to their goals and beliefs and they have a much much stronger support base. They've also raised a great deal more awareness about their cause and put a lot more political pressure on the Western world and the US in particular in their policy towards the Middle East and their sponsorship of dictators around the world.
War on Terror/s-11 discussion
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Hey maybe we agree on something.
I also think the generic "war on terror" is probably being lost.(Iraq being one part of the "war")
Enemy agents can move freely to set up sabotage or cripple us whenever they want, in whatever Western country they want. They probably wait because America is lazy and complacent, and hemorraging .
And because they supposedly want attacks to be more spectacular than 911.
I wont say easily though, how do you measure that?
Jeremy wrote:
-----------------------
(.....)
and knowing the US approach to justice, it seems very unlikely that they would follow international law or even American law in dealing with him.
(......)
-----------------------
If they did catch him alive, going through International Law, or a soap opera American-style trial would defeat any benefit of capturing him.
Bin Ladens followers, or wanna-be's around the world will see us stumbling over ourselves to afford protections and rights upon those who follow no rules.
They will know that the West is soft, and that they can win, they should strike again, we don't have the will to fight.
Having a show trial would be a horrible spectacle, whether it's the proper thing to do or not.
-n
I also think the generic "war on terror" is probably being lost.(Iraq being one part of the "war")
Enemy agents can move freely to set up sabotage or cripple us whenever they want, in whatever Western country they want. They probably wait because America is lazy and complacent, and hemorraging .
And because they supposedly want attacks to be more spectacular than 911.
I wont say easily though, how do you measure that?
Jeremy wrote:
-----------------------
(.....)
and knowing the US approach to justice, it seems very unlikely that they would follow international law or even American law in dealing with him.
(......)
-----------------------
If they did catch him alive, going through International Law, or a soap opera American-style trial would defeat any benefit of capturing him.
Bin Ladens followers, or wanna-be's around the world will see us stumbling over ourselves to afford protections and rights upon those who follow no rules.
They will know that the West is soft, and that they can win, they should strike again, we don't have the will to fight.
Having a show trial would be a horrible spectacle, whether it's the proper thing to do or not.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
wow we agree on something. I'll have to rethink my position 
I think the thing about how Bin Ladin is treated if captured is the need to show the terrorists that "we're" not the same as them in terms of our moral beliefs. If he's punished without a fair trial it really shows that the concepts of "justice" that are preached by the Western world are only used when they want to use them - rather than all the time and demonstrates some degree of hypocricy which in such a public case would have very negative effects I think for gaining or retaining support - especially in the areas in question. I could see it being used as another recruiting tool for the terrorists. But then equally if he is captured and there is insignificant evidence to link him to any terrorist cases (which is fairly likely) and all he can be tried for is belonging to a terrorist group and funding a terrorist group it would be likely for him to only recieve a small jail sentence - which would have very negative effects for the war on terror and be a big blow. Much as I hate to say this, I think the best result for the US would be to kill Osama in a big gun fight with witnesses - thus the US can not be accused (or it would be harder for them to be accused) of executing him without trial and there is not the risk of an embarressing court decision or the issue of what to do with him. Of course he would still become a martyr and I'm unsure if in the long term his death would be good for the "war on terror" or not. It's obviously embarressing for the US to have not captured him - but at the same time he's only a figure head and at this stage not doing anything significant for the terrorist cause. Obviously I'm a pacifist so don't support killing him at all and think morally a fair trial is only worthy solution but objectively speaking I think the death in shoot out is the best outcome for the US and allies (ie. Australia).
I think the thing about how Bin Ladin is treated if captured is the need to show the terrorists that "we're" not the same as them in terms of our moral beliefs. If he's punished without a fair trial it really shows that the concepts of "justice" that are preached by the Western world are only used when they want to use them - rather than all the time and demonstrates some degree of hypocricy which in such a public case would have very negative effects I think for gaining or retaining support - especially in the areas in question. I could see it being used as another recruiting tool for the terrorists. But then equally if he is captured and there is insignificant evidence to link him to any terrorist cases (which is fairly likely) and all he can be tried for is belonging to a terrorist group and funding a terrorist group it would be likely for him to only recieve a small jail sentence - which would have very negative effects for the war on terror and be a big blow. Much as I hate to say this, I think the best result for the US would be to kill Osama in a big gun fight with witnesses - thus the US can not be accused (or it would be harder for them to be accused) of executing him without trial and there is not the risk of an embarressing court decision or the issue of what to do with him. Of course he would still become a martyr and I'm unsure if in the long term his death would be good for the "war on terror" or not. It's obviously embarressing for the US to have not captured him - but at the same time he's only a figure head and at this stage not doing anything significant for the terrorist cause. Obviously I'm a pacifist so don't support killing him at all and think morally a fair trial is only worthy solution but objectively speaking I think the death in shoot out is the best outcome for the US and allies (ie. Australia).
-
NotHisRealName
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2527
- Joined: 26 Oct 2002 03:43
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
- Contact:
Hmm...Jeremy has a lot of interesting points. About Osama, though; it's possible that he did jump the border to Pakistan and ran off to some cave somewhere because the borders there are fairly tough to control. It's also possible that he got blown up by a daisy cutter (I know there was that supposed Osama tape sent in some time ago by Osama encouraging Iraq to become a bloodbath, but I doubt it's him) because so many targets in the form of caves and tunnel complexes have been blown up, it could be impossible to determine if he met his demise in one of the bombings. Then again, it's also possible that he is alive and kickin'...though I hope his liver or kidney failure hurt him a lot.
The War on Terror has become futile. Ever since we went in to Iraq against the UN's council, everything's gone wrong (this is where I belive the UN is failing because they should have put the US to a stop when we invaded Iraq; at least that's my opinion). Afghanistan was a success only in name because we're still fighting the remaining Taliban and at the same time we turn a blind eye to a lot of the opium plantations ruled by US "loyalist" warlords. Iraq is just a giant catbox that's turning into a maelstrom of troubles...I want the troops home soon, but at the same time I know we can't just pull all of them out at once. The Iraqi government needs to get up and running. If it doesn't work the "democratic way," then we've failed. After that, we should let them decide how they want to run their government instead of trying to install a puppet that won't work. It's kinda like the woman that found a dying snake and nursed it back to health and when the snake bit her, she asked "why did you bite me?" The snake replied, "Hey, bitch, you knew I was a snake!" Hm...that's from a movie, I think. Can't remember what, but I feel that's a lot like what Iraq is now. Of course, we wouldn't be there now if we would've done the job right a decade ago.
The War on Terror has become futile. Ever since we went in to Iraq against the UN's council, everything's gone wrong (this is where I belive the UN is failing because they should have put the US to a stop when we invaded Iraq; at least that's my opinion). Afghanistan was a success only in name because we're still fighting the remaining Taliban and at the same time we turn a blind eye to a lot of the opium plantations ruled by US "loyalist" warlords. Iraq is just a giant catbox that's turning into a maelstrom of troubles...I want the troops home soon, but at the same time I know we can't just pull all of them out at once. The Iraqi government needs to get up and running. If it doesn't work the "democratic way," then we've failed. After that, we should let them decide how they want to run their government instead of trying to install a puppet that won't work. It's kinda like the woman that found a dying snake and nursed it back to health and when the snake bit her, she asked "why did you bite me?" The snake replied, "Hey, bitch, you knew I was a snake!" Hm...that's from a movie, I think. Can't remember what, but I feel that's a lot like what Iraq is now. Of course, we wouldn't be there now if we would've done the job right a decade ago.
Sam Mayer
"Son, a woman is like a beer. They smell good, they look good, you'd step over your own mother just to get one!" - Homer Simpson
"Son, a woman is like a beer. They smell good, they look good, you'd step over your own mother just to get one!" - Homer Simpson
Blackend wrote: (this is where I belive the UN is failing because they should have put the US to a stop when we invaded Iraq; at least that's my opinion).
You`ve gotta be kidding. The UN did everything in its power to stop the US, and Bush told them to fuck themselves! How can you blame the UN for not stopping the US? It never had the ability to do so in the first place!
That`s like, if Shaq got drunk, and said he wanted to drive home, and I told him he shouldn`t, but he decided to anyway, and then he killed a bunch of people in a drunken accident, and then you blame ME for not stopping a drunken Shaq from getting in his car. Yeah, I knew Shaq was making a mistake, and I told him not to, but he did anyway, and there`s nothing I could have done to stop him.
Afghanistan could have been a success, if we hadn`t diverted half our forces there and sent them to Iraq before we were finished there. People wonder why we haven`t got Osama yet?Blackend wrote:
Afghanistan was a success only in name because we're still fighting the remaining Taliban
I hear this line all the time, and I don`t buy it. Papa Bush didn`t invade Iraq because he knew it probably wouldn`t be the best idea to have America occupy a muslim country in the heart of the middle east. What makes you think the invasion would have been more successful 10 years ago than now? I guess back then we would have had more help (cause we actually had allies helping out), but it still would have been a near-impossible task.Blackend wrote:
Of course, we wouldn't be there now if we would've done the job right a decade ago.
The fact that the UN sanctioned the first Gulf War and the western world knew it was wrong for Saddam to be there. Had things been done there [in my opinion, mind you],I think things would have been a lot different than now.
About the UN "doing everything they could to stop the US," I say my opinion on that matter because when the commies invaded Korea in the 50s, they sanctioned a defense for the ROK; I'm not saying they should have defended the Iraqis in the terms of armed forces, but they could have done a lot more to stop us than basically let us ensue an aggressive war [such as sanctions and the like; I suppose by saying that, it's a bit blasphemous...it's MY opinion, though, and I'm entitled to it]. The UN has a lot of power, but when the US invaded Iraq, I believe it has shown a lot of that power has diminished.
About drunken Shaq...I could blame you because friends don't let friends drive drunk.
About the UN "doing everything they could to stop the US," I say my opinion on that matter because when the commies invaded Korea in the 50s, they sanctioned a defense for the ROK; I'm not saying they should have defended the Iraqis in the terms of armed forces, but they could have done a lot more to stop us than basically let us ensue an aggressive war [such as sanctions and the like; I suppose by saying that, it's a bit blasphemous...it's MY opinion, though, and I'm entitled to it]. The UN has a lot of power, but when the US invaded Iraq, I believe it has shown a lot of that power has diminished.
About drunken Shaq...I could blame you because friends don't let friends drive drunk.
Sam Mayer
"Son, a woman is like a beer. They smell good, they look good, you'd step over your own mother just to get one!" - Homer Simpson
"Son, a woman is like a beer. They smell good, they look good, you'd step over your own mother just to get one!" - Homer Simpson
-
wolfpac444
- Your Friendly Admin
- Posts: 1890
- Joined: 24 Mar 2003 00:07
Sam, maybe you should read up a little on how the UN works...
Since the US is a permanent member of the Security Council (the group within the UN that has the authority to issue things like troop deployment and economic sanctions), the US can single-handedly veto any measure they propose.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Securit ... Veto_Power and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council
Since the US is a permanent member of the Security Council (the group within the UN that has the authority to issue things like troop deployment and economic sanctions), the US can single-handedly veto any measure they propose.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Securit ... Veto_Power and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council
Mike Hansen
I know the US is a permanent member of the Security Council. So is China, Britain, France, and the Soviets. That didn't stop the US from embargoes on China or Russia, did it? Just because we're a permanent member on the council doesn't and shouldn't mean the rest are defensless against us. That would kinda defeat the reason the UN was created.wolfpac444 wrote:Sam, maybe you should read up a little on how the UN works...
Since the US is a permanent member of the Security Council (the group within the UN that has the authority to issue things like troop deployment and economic sanctions), the US can single-handedly veto any measure they propose.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Securit ... Veto_Power and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council
Sam Mayer
"Son, a woman is like a beer. They smell good, they look good, you'd step over your own mother just to get one!" - Homer Simpson
"Son, a woman is like a beer. They smell good, they look good, you'd step over your own mother just to get one!" - Homer Simpson
-
wolfpac444
- Your Friendly Admin
- Posts: 1890
- Joined: 24 Mar 2003 00:07
I'm confused. What would you have the UN do?Blackend wrote:About the UN "doing everything they could to stop the US," I say my opinion on that matter because when the commies invaded Korea in the 50s, they sanctioned a defense for the ROK; I'm not saying they should have defended the Iraqis in the terms of armed forces, but they could have done a lot more to stop us than basically let us ensue an aggressive war [such as sanctions and the like; I suppose by saying that, it's a bit blasphemous...it's MY opinion, though, and I'm entitled to it]. The UN has a lot of power, but when the US invaded Iraq, I believe it has shown a lot of that power has diminished.
Mike Hansen
I'm confused too.
The UN didn't accept the war in Iraq, but the US went there anyways. There's nothing the UN could've done cause the biggest payer is the USA and the major part of it's own forces are from the US.
Unfortunately the UN nowadays hasn't actually power at all - all they can do is to say their opinion, and some countries, like Germany and France, decide what they'll do after that (in the Iraq crisis).
I really do think it was good for the people of Iraq to get Saddam away. The war wasn't. And neither is the situation there at the moment - the situation at the moment is good only for the terrorists there.
I still think that instead of "liberating Iraq of Saddam" wasn't the major reason (who really believed that crap?!!), the reason was and is oil.
Off-topic: After Katrina I hope Bush finally sees how insane the oil consumption in the USA is and how big part the country has to the growing green house effect.
The UN didn't accept the war in Iraq, but the US went there anyways. There's nothing the UN could've done cause the biggest payer is the USA and the major part of it's own forces are from the US.
Unfortunately the UN nowadays hasn't actually power at all - all they can do is to say their opinion, and some countries, like Germany and France, decide what they'll do after that (in the Iraq crisis).
I really do think it was good for the people of Iraq to get Saddam away. The war wasn't. And neither is the situation there at the moment - the situation at the moment is good only for the terrorists there.
I still think that instead of "liberating Iraq of Saddam" wasn't the major reason (who really believed that crap?!!), the reason was and is oil.
Off-topic: After Katrina I hope Bush finally sees how insane the oil consumption in the USA is and how big part the country has to the growing green house effect.
Lauri Jaakkola
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
----------------------------------------
Off-topic: After Katrina I hope Bush finally sees how insane the oil consumption in the USA is and how big part the country has to the growing green house effect.
-----------------------------------------
This isn't off-topic. Harp on America for the alleged "greenhouse" effect long enough, and you have a new justification for attacking people and economy.
If the "warming" is "found" to be irreversable, then America needs to be punished in the pocketbook, or in other ways.
If the "warming" is "found" to be reversable, then America needs to be stopped from polluting so much.
The entire globe is suffering because of U.S., so ANY MEANS are justified in limiting their emissions.
Maybe when the next non-American country gets hit by a storm, they can vent their anger at their local American institutions or people.
Global warming can be the magical propaganda bullet. It can pull people of all races and all nationalities together with the common goal of crushing America.
The world can ONLY be saved by a reduction of our consumption. If we don't choose to reduce our consumption, then YOU will have to do it for us.
p.s.
I'll see you at the next E.L.F. meeting.
-n
Off-topic: After Katrina I hope Bush finally sees how insane the oil consumption in the USA is and how big part the country has to the growing green house effect.
-----------------------------------------
This isn't off-topic. Harp on America for the alleged "greenhouse" effect long enough, and you have a new justification for attacking people and economy.
If the "warming" is "found" to be irreversable, then America needs to be punished in the pocketbook, or in other ways.
If the "warming" is "found" to be reversable, then America needs to be stopped from polluting so much.
The entire globe is suffering because of U.S., so ANY MEANS are justified in limiting their emissions.
Maybe when the next non-American country gets hit by a storm, they can vent their anger at their local American institutions or people.
Global warming can be the magical propaganda bullet. It can pull people of all races and all nationalities together with the common goal of crushing America.
The world can ONLY be saved by a reduction of our consumption. If we don't choose to reduce our consumption, then YOU will have to do it for us.
p.s.
I'll see you at the next E.L.F. meeting.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
THE GANG OF TEN TO BE EXPOSED?
By Michael J. Gaynor
MichNews.com
Sep 16, 2005
The September 11 Commissioners are a Gang of Ten.
And their job apparently needs to be done again!
Message to Bill O'Reilly: Back up Congressman Curt Weldon, Republican of Pennsylvania, the Congressman leading the effort to let people know what was known about Mohamed Atta, and when.
Two military officers, Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott, have come forward to support Congressman Weldon's claims.
The members of the September 11 Commission supposedly were unconvinced. They dismissed the "Able Danger" assertions. One of them, former Senator Slade Gorton, Republican of Washington said: "Bluntly, it just didn't happen and that's the conclusion of all 10 of us."
That you for your bluntness, Senator.
Let me be equally blunt: I wonder just how gullible and malleable you are.
Now it is reported that a Pentagon employee was ordered to destroy the documents that identified Mohamed Atta as a terrorist long before September 11, 2005.
That employee reportedly is ready, willing and able to testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee and to identify the person who ordered him to destroy the documents.
The Pentagon reportedly wants the hearing closed.
Congressman Weldon believes that Atta, the mastermind of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and three other hijackers were identified in 1999 by a classified military intelligence unit known as "Able Danger," which determined they could be members of an al-Qaida cell.
It should be obvious by now that the "wall" between military intelligence and domestic law enforcement was a catastrophic mistake.
And that Commissioner Jaime Gorelick never should have been appointed and never should have accepted appointment. And the other Commissioners never should have tolerated her presence on the Commission.
And it's becoming as obvious that the Commission was woefully deficient.
Congressman Weldon was blunt too: "It's absolutely unbelievable that a commission would say this program just didn't exist."
It's unbelievable that such a "mistake" was accidental.
Pentagon officials said this month they had found three more people who recall an intelligence chart identifying Atta as a terrorist prior to the September
11 attacks.
Dick Morris just issued this thought-provoking report that bears upon what is believable and unbelievable:
"The recent publication of some once-censored parts of the 9/11 Commission report reveals that, in 1998, federal intelligence sources had shared their concern that al Qaeda could be planning to use passenger airplanes as missiles on suicide raids against prominent targets in the United States. This is the first time we've heard that that the possibility of such a suicide mission was raised at the federal level during the Clinton years.
"But the entire thrust of the administration's attitude toward air safety and security was based on the happy assumption that no terrorist would ever engage in a suicide bombing using airplanes. Now the question arises: Why did not the Clinton Administration re-evaluate its air safety measures in light of the 1998 warning?
"After the crash of TWA flight 800 and the bombing of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, both of which were thought at the time to possibly be connected to international terrorists, President Clinton assigned Vice President Al Gore to head a commission on air safety to counter the possible terrorist threat. With his usual technical thoroughness but cerebral obtuseness, Gore conducted a wide-ranging review of air-safety measures and set up a system to predict who would hijack a passenger airplane. The system, called CAPPS (Civil Aviation Passenger Protection System) was based in an algorithm that evaluated risk factors to spot hijackers.
"And CAPPS worked brilliantly on 9/11 -- picking out 11 of the 19 hijackers for special scrutiny as possible terrorists.
"But.
"Gore's work was entirely based on the belief that nobody would commit suicide while hijacking a plane. So the only purpose of CAPPS was to assure that these passengers boarded the airplane with their checked baggage -- since the feds assumed that the checked bags couldn't have a bomb in if the terrorist was on the plane himself.
"As naive and shortsighted as this assumption was -- and as disastrous as it turned out to be -- until now we have only been able to chalk it up to Al Gore's particular brand of myopia. But now we have evidence that one year after his report was issued, the White House received a warning that a suicide mission was a distinct possibility.
"Why did Gore or Clinton not spring into action and undertake a review of the 1997 Commission report to adjust its conclusions to take account of this new possibility?
"This oversight led to the horrendous lack of preparedness on 9/11.
"To be sure, the intelligence finding was cloaked in ambiguity with disclaimers that suggested that al Qaeda would only use a suicide attack as a last resort and indicated that it did not feel such a tactic was likely. But the finding spelled out in black and white exactly what happened: Terrorists would hijack passenger planes in the United States and use them to destroy prominent public buildings.
"Had Gore and Clinton acted as they should have, all kinds of changes might have been made that could have forestalled 9/11. Boxcutters and small knives could have been barred from planes (after being specifically permitted in a change in FAA rules early in the Clinton years). Passengers identified by the CAPPS system could be investigated and barred from planes without special pat downs and screening. The entire system could have been refocused to take account of the suicide option in a way that it never was before 9/11.
"The blame, of course, should fall not only on a Clinton administration distracted by impeachment and fighting for its political life, but also on the Bush Administration -- which is why the paragraph was initially redacted from the published version of the 9/11 report."
Senator Specter, make sure that hearing is open to the public!
Get to the bottom of things.
A bipartisan whitewash is still a whitewash!
And surely former Clinton National Security Adviser and convicted felon Sandy Berger was not the only person obstructing justice.
-------------------------------------------
Email: [email protected]
By Michael J. Gaynor
MichNews.com
Sep 16, 2005
The September 11 Commissioners are a Gang of Ten.
And their job apparently needs to be done again!
Message to Bill O'Reilly: Back up Congressman Curt Weldon, Republican of Pennsylvania, the Congressman leading the effort to let people know what was known about Mohamed Atta, and when.
Two military officers, Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott, have come forward to support Congressman Weldon's claims.
The members of the September 11 Commission supposedly were unconvinced. They dismissed the "Able Danger" assertions. One of them, former Senator Slade Gorton, Republican of Washington said: "Bluntly, it just didn't happen and that's the conclusion of all 10 of us."
That you for your bluntness, Senator.
Let me be equally blunt: I wonder just how gullible and malleable you are.
Now it is reported that a Pentagon employee was ordered to destroy the documents that identified Mohamed Atta as a terrorist long before September 11, 2005.
That employee reportedly is ready, willing and able to testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee and to identify the person who ordered him to destroy the documents.
The Pentagon reportedly wants the hearing closed.
Congressman Weldon believes that Atta, the mastermind of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and three other hijackers were identified in 1999 by a classified military intelligence unit known as "Able Danger," which determined they could be members of an al-Qaida cell.
It should be obvious by now that the "wall" between military intelligence and domestic law enforcement was a catastrophic mistake.
And that Commissioner Jaime Gorelick never should have been appointed and never should have accepted appointment. And the other Commissioners never should have tolerated her presence on the Commission.
And it's becoming as obvious that the Commission was woefully deficient.
Congressman Weldon was blunt too: "It's absolutely unbelievable that a commission would say this program just didn't exist."
It's unbelievable that such a "mistake" was accidental.
Pentagon officials said this month they had found three more people who recall an intelligence chart identifying Atta as a terrorist prior to the September
11 attacks.
Dick Morris just issued this thought-provoking report that bears upon what is believable and unbelievable:
"The recent publication of some once-censored parts of the 9/11 Commission report reveals that, in 1998, federal intelligence sources had shared their concern that al Qaeda could be planning to use passenger airplanes as missiles on suicide raids against prominent targets in the United States. This is the first time we've heard that that the possibility of such a suicide mission was raised at the federal level during the Clinton years.
"But the entire thrust of the administration's attitude toward air safety and security was based on the happy assumption that no terrorist would ever engage in a suicide bombing using airplanes. Now the question arises: Why did not the Clinton Administration re-evaluate its air safety measures in light of the 1998 warning?
"After the crash of TWA flight 800 and the bombing of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, both of which were thought at the time to possibly be connected to international terrorists, President Clinton assigned Vice President Al Gore to head a commission on air safety to counter the possible terrorist threat. With his usual technical thoroughness but cerebral obtuseness, Gore conducted a wide-ranging review of air-safety measures and set up a system to predict who would hijack a passenger airplane. The system, called CAPPS (Civil Aviation Passenger Protection System) was based in an algorithm that evaluated risk factors to spot hijackers.
"And CAPPS worked brilliantly on 9/11 -- picking out 11 of the 19 hijackers for special scrutiny as possible terrorists.
"But.
"Gore's work was entirely based on the belief that nobody would commit suicide while hijacking a plane. So the only purpose of CAPPS was to assure that these passengers boarded the airplane with their checked baggage -- since the feds assumed that the checked bags couldn't have a bomb in if the terrorist was on the plane himself.
"As naive and shortsighted as this assumption was -- and as disastrous as it turned out to be -- until now we have only been able to chalk it up to Al Gore's particular brand of myopia. But now we have evidence that one year after his report was issued, the White House received a warning that a suicide mission was a distinct possibility.
"Why did Gore or Clinton not spring into action and undertake a review of the 1997 Commission report to adjust its conclusions to take account of this new possibility?
"This oversight led to the horrendous lack of preparedness on 9/11.
"To be sure, the intelligence finding was cloaked in ambiguity with disclaimers that suggested that al Qaeda would only use a suicide attack as a last resort and indicated that it did not feel such a tactic was likely. But the finding spelled out in black and white exactly what happened: Terrorists would hijack passenger planes in the United States and use them to destroy prominent public buildings.
"Had Gore and Clinton acted as they should have, all kinds of changes might have been made that could have forestalled 9/11. Boxcutters and small knives could have been barred from planes (after being specifically permitted in a change in FAA rules early in the Clinton years). Passengers identified by the CAPPS system could be investigated and barred from planes without special pat downs and screening. The entire system could have been refocused to take account of the suicide option in a way that it never was before 9/11.
"The blame, of course, should fall not only on a Clinton administration distracted by impeachment and fighting for its political life, but also on the Bush Administration -- which is why the paragraph was initially redacted from the published version of the 9/11 report."
Senator Specter, make sure that hearing is open to the public!
Get to the bottom of things.
A bipartisan whitewash is still a whitewash!
And surely former Clinton National Security Adviser and convicted felon Sandy Berger was not the only person obstructing justice.
-------------------------------------------
Email: [email protected]
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan