Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	7/31/2003 12:13:15 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

US intelligence failings attacked news.bbc.co.uk The United States Congress has released a report highlighting failings by the US intelligence services in the run-up to the 11 September 2001 attacks. The report says the attacks could have been prevented if the right combination of "skill, co-operation, creativity and good luck had been brought to bear". However, the 900-page report concludes that there was no one piece of intelligence that "would have identified the place, date or time of the attacks". Saudi Arabia also comes under criticism, with the chair of the investigation, Senator Bob Graham, accusing Riyadh of providing some assistance to the hijackers and failing to cooperate with the US intelligence agencies. The Saudi ambassador to the United States Prince Bandar bin Sultan said accusations that his government was involved in 11 September were malicious and blatantly false. Referring to sections of the report which were classified and remain unpublished, he said Saudi Arabia had nothing to hide, but couldn't respond to blank pages. Missed warnings The report criticises the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for the breakdown in their communication. Among the 16 recommendations, the document urges that a new system of accountability be put into place across the whole intelligence community in the US. Some of the failings listed in the report are well known, such as the warning from an FBI agent about Middle Eastern men attending flight training schools that was ignored by FBI headquarters, says the BBC's Rob Watson in Washington. But some of the information is new. The report says that in May 2001 a key hijacker, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, had been identified in an intelligence report as seeking recruits to travel to the United States for terrorist activities. Those individuals would be expected to make contact with "colleagues" already there, it said. The report also says two of the hijackers had had "numerous contacts" with an FBI informant in San Diego who was not aware that they were al-Qaeda militants. The two, Nawaq Alhamzi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, had been identified as members of Osama bin Laden's network after attending an al-Qaeda meeting in Malaysia in January 2000, the report says. However this information was not passed on to the FBI, according to the congressmen. Funding The document says a student who provided al-Mihdhar and Alhazmi with financial help, Omar al-Bayoumi, "had access to seemingly unlimited funding from Saudi Arabia". The Riyadh government has consistently denied any links with the hijackers. The report includes criticism of Saudi co-operation in fighting Muslim militants. There were calls by Senator Graham and others to declassify the sections of the report dealing with alleged Saudi links. "President Bush needs to declassify parts of the congressional report that detail Saudi Government involvement in the events leading up to the 9/11 terrorist attacks," Representative Eliot Engel said. However House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, defended the classification, saying it was "intended to protect sources and methods" rather than "reputations and countries". "No one will ever know what might have happened had more connections been drawn between these disparate pieces of information," the report said. Although the report was completed in December, it has taken until now for it to be declassified. The congressional report follows hearings by the joint committee last year. A separate independent commission is also looking into the 11 September attacks and is expected to make its conclusions next May.

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	7/31/2003 2:37:27 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

Swiftly, Plan for Terrorism Futures Market Slips Into Dustbin The New York Times July 30, 2003 By CARL HULSE WASHINGTON, July 29 - The Pentagon's new terrorism futures market is suddenly a thing of the past. Only a day after it was disclosed, outraged senators of both parties called today for the immediate end to the online trading bazaar that would have rewarded investors able to predict terror attacks and other global unrest. Pentagon officials raced to oblige, saying it would be shut down posthaste. "It is a very significant mistake," said Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Democrats quickly pointed the finger at John M. Poindexter, a retired rear admiral who was a key official involved in developing the plan. "This Poindexter program is still a runaway horse that needs to be reined in," said Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, one of the two Democrats who brought the plan to light on Monday. Admiral Poindexter first gained notoriety in the Iran-contra scandal during the Reagan administration and more recently he oversaw a Pentagon program for extensive electronic surveillance of computer records in the search for terrorists. "That is two strikes now," Mr. Warner said. "Do you have to throw a third strike?" Admiral Poindexter did not respond to requests for comment left at the Pentagon. Mr. Wyden and Senator Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota disclosed the existence of the futures program on Monday, calling it grotesque. Under the Pentagon plan, traders were to be able to begin registering on Friday to trade futures in Middle East developments as of Oct. 1 on a Web site of the Policy Analysis Market, which the Pentagon was operating with private partners. At a Senate hearing this morning, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz said he first learned of it from news accounts. "I share your shock at this kind of program," Mr. Wolfowitz said. "We'll find out about it, but it is being terminated." Mr. Warner and his colleagues summoned the head of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, where the market idea was developed, to the Capitol to explain how the concept originated. The director, Tony Tether, put out a statement, saying the program was finished, effective immediately. "Our job at Darpa is to explore new ideas and this is an idea that was not going to work out," he said. Mr. Warner and other senators responsible for overseeing Defense Department spending moved quickly to disassociate themselves from the program, promising hearings and much more aggressive oversight of the research arm of the Pentagon. They said they had never been told any details of the $3 million program, which they harshly criticized as ill-conceived and unwarranted. "It is totally unauthorized as far as we are concerned," said Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. "No funds should have been used for it at all. It's really a serious mistake on the part of Darpa." Democrats said cutting off the money to this specific initiative was not enough. "I think those who thought it up ought not only close down the program, they ought not be on the public payroll any longer," Mr. Dorgan said. He and Mr. Wyden said the uproar over the market plan should give momentum to their push to cut off all money flowing to the Terrorism Information Awareness effort being run out of Darpa. That program, originally called Total Information Awareness, was developed by Admiral Poindexter as a way of forestalling terrorism by tapping into computer databases to collect medical records, travel records, credit records and financial data. Worried about privacy concerns, Congress earlier this year prohibited it from being used against Americans. Admiral Poindexter was a central figure in the 1980's Iran-contra scandal and was convicted of lying to Congress, though his conviction was later overturned. At the Pentagon, the chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, was asked about the status of the former Navy officer and said, "At the moment, Admiral Poindexter continues to serve in Darpa." Republican lawmakers said the uproar over the marketing plan could jeopardize Congressional support for Darpa programs, though they were not ready to call for the end of the terrorism information effort. As for personnel changes, they said those decisions were the responsibility of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. But Senator Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican who serves on both the intelligence and armed services committees, called the market plan "absurd," and added, "It seems to me they are way off base and somebody should bear that responsibility, and I think we know who that is." The Pentagon market Web site was the first step in a broader program titled Futures Markets Applied to Predictions. In statements over the past two days, Darpa said the idea behind the project was to use a marketplace to assess the probability of events, a concept that has worked with predictions in such matters as commodity prices and elections. Examples of potential events on the Web site included the overthrow of the king of Jordan, a missile strike by North Korea or the assassination of Yasir Arafat. While some lawmakers said they understood the fundamental idea behind the project, they said it clearly crossed a line given the continuing effort against terrorism and the war in Iraq. "I cannot conceive of any reason why the United States Government should be involved in a project of this nature," the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, said in a letter to lawmakers responsible for Pentagon spending, urging that they cut off any aid to the market project. The Democratic leader, Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, was harsher. "I am troubled, alarmed, just amazed that anybody with positions of responsibility and authority would suggest that we do things of this nature," he said. Mr. Warner and others said Darpa, which is credited with creating the forerunner to the Internet among other innovations, has proved its value in the past, but they said this plan was out of bounds. "It sounds like maybe they got too imaginative in this area," Mr. Wolfowitz said. nytimes.com Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	7/31/2003 2:52:12 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Poindexter's Follies The New York Times Editorial July 30, 2003 The time has obviously come to send John Poindexter packing and to shut down the wacky espionage operation he runs at the Pentagon. The latest idea hatched by Mr. Poindexter's shop - an online futures trading market where speculators could bet on the probabilities of terrorist attacks, assassinations and coups - was canceled yesterday by embarrassed Pentagon officials. The next logical step is to fire Mr. Poindexter. In testimony before Congress yesterday, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, disowned the futures project. The insensitivity of the idea boggles the mind. Quite apart from the tone-deafness of equating terrorist attacks with, say, corn futures, the plan would allow speculators - even terrorists - to profit from anonymous bets on future attacks. The project's theoretical underpinnings are equally absurd. Markets do not always operate perfectly in the larger world of stocks and bonds. The idea that they can reliably forecast the behavior of isolated terrorists is ridiculous. The "Policy Analysis Market" would actually have opened for business on Oct. 1 had Senators Ron Wyden and Byron Dorgan not blown the whistle. Despite Mr. Wolfowitz's pledge to kill it, however, the problem of Mr. Poindexter remains. He is a man of dubious background and dubious ideas. A retired rear admiral, he served as Ronald Reagan's national security adviser and helped devise the plan to sell arms to Iran and illegally divert the proceeds to the rebels in Nicaragua. He was sentenced to six months in jail for lying to Congress, a conviction overturned on appeal. He resurfaced under the Bush administration at the Pentagon. His first big brainstorm post-9/11 was a program known as Total Information Awareness, designed to identify potential terrorists by compiling a detailed electronic dossier on millions of Americans. Congress agreed earlier this year to subject that program to strict oversight and prohibit it from being used against Americans. In light of the revelations about the latest Poindexter scheme, Congress obviously did not go far enough. It should close his operation for good. The Senate recently agreed to do just that, adding an amendment to a Defense Department appropriations bill that would terminate funds for the program. The House must now follow suit. nytimes.com Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	7/31/2003 4:54:28 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

The Saudi connection courier-journal.com One of the most disturbing features of last week's congressional report on the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks concerns a section that the public is not being allowed to see: the role of the government of Saudi Arabia. Americans have long known, of course, that 15 of the 19 hijackers, as well as Osama bin Laden himself, were natives of Saudi Arabia, but that fact has generally been viewed as reflecting the prevalence of an extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism in the kingdom. Defenders of the Saudi monarchy have correctly noted that perhaps the key objective of bin Laden and his followers was to topple the regime, which al-Qaida views as corrupt and unworthy to defend Islam's holiest sites. However, The New York Times reports that the congressional inquiry alleges that senior Saudi officials funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to dubious Muslim charities and groups that may have helped finance the 2001 attacks. The findings are part of a 28-page section on the Saudi connection that was deleted at the insistence of the Bush administration. The Saudi government has reacted with outrage, condemning the illogic of any thought that the regime would deliberately support a cult that would destroy it. But that argument sets up a straw man. The Saudis do not stand accused of knowingly aiding the events of Sept. 11. There is, however, apparently serious evidence that Saudi officials casually threw around large sums of money to Muslim charities in order to placate conservative Islamic clergy who might otherwise oppose the regime. Some of that money may well have found its way into al-Qaida's hands. Moreover, there have been sharply conflicting accounts of the levels of Saudi cooperation with American intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, before and after the attacks. The Saudi ambassador to Washington claims his government has been a key partner in the war on terrorism. The American public deserves to see whether the congressional inquiry validates that boast. The administration is understandably sensitive to the complex security, economic and oil links between the United States and Saudi Arabia. But the tragedy of Sept. 11 claimed more than 3,000 lives and has led to two wars. Americans have a right to know whether the Saudi regime, however unintentionally, contributed to the attacks."...." and if so, what President Bush intends to do about it."

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	7/31/2003 5:01:56 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Read Between the Lines of Those 28 Missing Pages: Even censored, 9/11 report shows the focus was on the wrong nation. July 29, 2003 latimes.com Robert Scheer: Love the truth; it ultimately bows to no master. Even for the president of the United States, the commander in chief of the world's most powerful propaganda machine, deceptions inevitably unravel. In the last week we've moved from the 16 deceitful words in George W. Bush's State of the Union speech to the 28 White House-censored pages in the congressional report that dealt with Saudi Arabia's role in the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the United States. Yet even in its sanitized version, the bipartisan report, long delayed by an embarrassed White House, makes clear that the U.S. should have focused on Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq, in the aftermath of Sept. 11. As we know, but our government tends to ignore, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia; none came from Iraq. Leaks from the censored portions of the report indicate that at least some of those Saudi terrorists were in close contact with - and financed by - members of the Saudi elite, extending into the ranks of the royal family. The report finds no such connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda terrorists. It is now quite clear that the president - unwilling to deal with the ties between Saudi Arabia and Osama bin Laden - pursued Hussein as a politically convenient scapegoat. By drawing attention away from the Muslim fanatic networks centered in Saudi Arabia, Bush diverted the war against terror. That seems to be the implication of the 28 pages, which the White House demanded be kept from the American people when the full report was released. Even many in Bush's own party are irritated that the president doesn't think we can be trusted with the truth. "I went back and read every one of those pages thoroughly," Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), former vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Sunday on "Meet the Press." "My judgment is 95% of that information could be declassified, become uncensored so the American people would know." Asked why he thought the pages were excised, Shelby, a leading pro-administration conservative, said, "I think it might be embarrassing to international relations." Quite an embarrassment if the censored pages reveal that the Bush administration covered up the Saudi connection to the terrorist attacks. Obviously alluding to Saudi Arabia, Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), the former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, said Sunday, "High officials in this government, who I assume were not just rogue officials acting on their own, made substantial contributions to the support and well-being of two of these terrorists and facilitated their ability to plan, practice and then execute the tragedy of Sept. 11." On Monday, Graham, responding to reports that Saudi Arabia would welcome making public some of the pages, called on Bush to fully declassify "the currently censored pages." Newsweek, relying on anonymous government sources, reported Monday that the "connections between high-level Saudi princes and associates of the hijackers" included helping Al Qaeda operatives enter the U.S. and financing their residence in San Diego, where they plotted their infamous attacks. Remember too that it was well known that Saudi charities with ties to the royal House of Saud were bankrolling the Al Qaeda operation in Afghanistan - even as George H.W. Bush visited the kingdom shortly after his son was elected, eager to secure contracts for his then-employer, the Carlyle Group. The fact is, Riyadh, unlike Baghdad, has long been a key hotbed of extremist Muslim organizing. By shielding and nurturing our relationship with the Saudi sheiks, Bush & Son have provided cover for those who support terror. After all, is it really likely that career-conscious FBI and CIA officers would be willing to criticize possible Al Qaeda-House of Saud links when the president's father is out hustling business ties with the same family? Even after Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration immediately protected Saudis in the United States, including allowing members of the large Bin Laden family who were in this country to be spirited home on their government's aircraft before they could be questioned. This at a time when many immigrants from all over the world were being detained arbitrarily. Bush has used Sept. 11 as an excuse to turn this country upside down, making a hash of civil liberties and bankrupting our federal government with unprecedented deficit spending on war and its materiel. Before we do any more irrevocable damage in the name of an open-ended "war against evil," we have a right and a responsibility to confront the uncensored truth of what happened that black day - no matter what powerful people are brought to account.

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	8/19/2003 12:36:09 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

9/11-style attack predicted in next year seattlepi.nwsource.com Monday, August 18, 2003 · Last updated 5:12 a.m. PT By AUDREY WOODS ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER LONDON -- Another Sept. 11-style terrorism attack is "highly likely" in the United States, which ranks fourth in an index assessing the risk to 186 countries, a research company said Sunday. The London-based World Markets Research Center ranked Colombia, Israel, Pakistan, the United States and the Philippines, in descending order, as the five countries most likely to be targeted in a terrorist attack in the next year, said Guy Dunn, author of the company's World Terrorism Index. The index, to be published Monday, assesses the risk of terrorism to the countries and their interests abroad, he said. The country least likely to be attacked by terrorists is North Korea, Dunn said. The assessments used five criteria: motivation of terrorists, the presence of terror groups, the scale and frequency of past attacks, efficacy of the groups in carrying out attacks and how many attacks were thwarted by the country. The categories also were weighted differently. For example, 40 percent was given to motivation and 10 percent to prevention. "Another Sept. 11-style terrorist attack in the United States is highly likely," the report states. "Networks of militant Islamist groups are less extensive in the U.S. than they are in Western Europe, but U.S.-led military action in Afghanistan and Iraq has exacerbated anti-U.S. sentiment." In terms of motivation, Dunn said, "The United States, as a global superpower, is considered a legitimate, high-profile target." But in terms of the presence of terrorist cells, the United States has relatively few, "although it is probably the most open society in the world," he said. Terrorists also consider American interests in other countries legitimate political targets, he said. Dunn said the United Kingdom, tied at 10th place with Sri Lanka, is a target partly because of its close relationship with the United States; its key roles in wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and terrorism; and the presence of sophisticated militant networks. But Britain also "probably has the strongest counterterrorism capabilities in the world" because of years of fighting the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland, he said. The company, specializing in country risk, has hundreds of clients in 45 nations. Approximately 80 percent are multinational companies and banks, Dunn said. The remaining 20 percent are mostly governments, but also universities and charities. They include foreign ministries, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Terrorism has moved from being a peripheral threat before Sept. 11, 2001, to being a key risk to business, and no longer is isolated in the targeted countries, Dunn said. In a client survey, 72 percent said they considered terrorism when making international location decisions, he said. "What changed with 9-11 was that the threat was internationalized. .... All countries were at some risk. In essence terrorism has become a key risk to business. Companies have to take a much more specific interest in terrorism," Dunn said.

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	8/23/2003 2:28:54 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

White House edited EPA's 9/11 reports Saturday, August 23, 2003 seattlepi.nwsource.com By JOHN HEILPRIN THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON -- At the White House's direction, the Environmental Protection Agency gave New Yorkers misleading assurances that there was no health risk from the debris-laden air after the World Trade Center collapse, according to an internal inquiry. President Bush's senior environmental adviser yesterday defended the White House involvement, saying it was justified by national security. The White House "convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones" by having the National Security Council control EPA communications after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, according to a report issued late Thursday by EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley. "When EPA made a Sept. 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to breathe, the agency did not have sufficient data and analyses to make the statement," the report says, adding that the EPA had yet to adequately monitor air quality for contaminants such as PCBs, soot and dioxin. In all, the EPA issued five news releases within 10 days of the attacks and four more by the end of 2001 reassuring the public about air quality. But it wasn't until June 2002 that the EPA determined that air quality had returned to pre-Sept. 11 levels -- well after respiratory ailments and other problems began to surface in hundreds of workers cleaning dusty offices and apartments. The day after the attacks, former EPA Deputy Administrator Linda Fisher's chief of staff e-mailed senior EPA officials to say that "all statements to the media should be cleared" first by the National Security Council, which is Bush's main forum for discussing national security and foreign policy matters with his senior aides and Cabinet, the inspector general's report says. Approval from the NSC, the report says, was arranged through the White House Council on Environmental Quality, which "influenced, through the collaboration process, the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones." For example, the inspector general found, the EPA was persuaded to omit guidance for cleaning indoor spaces and tips on potential health effects from airborne dust containing asbestos, lead, glass fibers and concrete. James Connaughton, chairman of the environmental council, which coordinates federal environmental efforts, said the White House directed the EPA to add and delete information based on how it should be released publicly. He said the EPA did "an incredible job" with the World Trade Center cleanup. Andy Darrell, New York regional director of Environmental Defense, an advocacy group, said the report is indicative of a pattern of White House interference in EPA affairs. "For EPA to do its job well, it needs to be allowed to make decisions based on the science and the facts," he said. The EPA inspector general recommended the EPA adopt new procedures so its public statements on health risks and environmental quality are backed by data and analysis. Other recommendations include developing better procedures for indoor air cleanups and asbestos handling in large-scale disasters. On the Net: EPA Inspector General: www.epa.gov/oigearth National Security Council: www.whitehouse.gov/nsc Council on Environmental Quality: www.whitehouse.gov/ceq

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	8/24/2003 6:01:11 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

W. House Molded EPA's 9/11 Reports cbsnews.com Excerpt: WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 2003 " (CBS/AP) The Environmental Protection Agency's internal watchdog says White House officials pressured the agency to prematurely assure the public that the air was safe to breathe a week after the World Trade Center collapse. "Competing considerations, such as national security concerns and the desire to reopen Wall Street, also played a role in EPA's air quality statements," the report said."

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	8/27/2003 12:18:11 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Dust and Deception August 26, 2003 OP-ED COLUMNIST The New York Times By PAUL KRUGMAN Last week a quietly scathing report by the inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed what some have long suspected: in the aftermath of the World Trade Center's collapse, the agency systematically misled New Yorkers about the risks the resulting air pollution posed to their health. And it did so under pressure from the White House. The Bush administration has misled the public on many issues, from the budget outlook to the Iraqi threat. But this particular deception seems, at first sight, not just callous but gratuitous. It's only when you look back at budget politics in 2001 that you see the method in the administration's mendacity. A draft E.P.A. report released last December conceded that 9/11 had led to huge emissions of pollutants. In particular, releases of dioxins - which are carcinogens and can also damage the nervous system and cause birth defects - created "likely the highest ambient concentrations that have ever been reported," up to 1,500 times normal levels. But the report concluded that because the outdoor air cleared after a couple of months, little harm had been done. In fact, the main danger comes from toxic dust that seeped into buildings and remains in carpets, furniture and air ducts. According to a recent report in Salon, businesses that did environmental assessments of their own premises found alarming levels not just of dioxins but also of asbestos and other dangerous pollutants. So the most shocking revelation from the new report is that under White House direction, the E.P.A. suppressed warnings about indoor pollution. Scattered evidence suggests that as a result, hundreds of cleaning workers and thousands of residents may be suffering chronic health problems. Why was crucial information withheld from the public? The report mentions "the desire to reopen Wall Street and national security concerns." Maybe - though the national security benefits of failing to remove toxic dust escape me. I suspect that there was another reason: budget politics. Immediately after 9/11 there was a great national outpouring of sympathy for New York, and a natural inclination to provide generous help. President Bush quickly promised $20 billion, and everyone expected the federal government to assume the burden of additional security. Yet hard-line Republicans never wanted to help the stricken city. Indeed, according to an article by Michael Tomasky in New York magazine, Senators Phil Gramm and Don Nickles attempted to slash aid to New York within hours of Mr. Bush's promise. Matters were patched up sufficiently so Mr. Bush could make his triumphant appearance at ground zero the next day. But then the backtracking began. By February 2002, only a fraction of the promised funds had been allocated - and Mitch Daniels, the White House budget director, accused New York's lawmakers of playing "money-grubbing games." Why this stinginess? A source told Mr. Tomasky that "Gramm just doesn't like spending money. And Nickles . . . he's just anti-New York." That sums it up: even after 9/11, hard-line conservatives opposed any spending, no matter how justified, that wasn't on weapons or farm subsidies, while some people from America's "red states" just hate big-city folk. What does all this have to do with toxic dust? Think how much harder it would have been to stiff New York if the public had understood the extent to which Lower Manhattan had become a hazardous waste site. I can't prove that was what administration officials were thinking, but otherwise their efforts to play down the risks seem incomprehensible. In the end, New York seems to have gotten its $20 billion - barely. As for the additional help everyone expected: don't get me started. There wasn't a penny of federal aid for "first responders" - like those firefighters and police officers who cheered Mr. Bush at ground zero - until a few months ago, and much of it went to sparsely populated states. The federal government spends much more protecting the average resident of Wyoming from terrorists than it spends protecting the average resident of New York City. All in all, the people running Washington, while eager to invoke 9/11 on behalf of whatever they feel like doing, have treated the city that bore the brunt of the actual attack very shabbily. In September 2004 the Republicans will hold their nominating convention in New York. Will New Yorkers take the occasion to remind them about how the city was lied to and shortchanged? nytimes.com Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	9/4/2003 5:19:15 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

White House agreed to whisk Saudis away after 9/11 Eric Lichtblau NYT Thursday, September 4, 2003 Senator criticizes airlift iht.com WASHINGTON Top White House officials personally approved the evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, from the United States in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when most flights were still grounded, according to a former White House adviser. Richard Clarke, who ran the White House crisis team after the attacks but has since left the Bush administration, said he agreed to the extraordinary plan because the Federal Bureau of Investigation assured him that the departing Saudis were not linked to terrorism. The White House feared that the Saudis could face "retribution" for the hijackings, Clarke said. The fact that relatives of bin Laden and other Saudis had been rushed out of the country became public soon after the Sept. 11 attacks. But questions have lingered about the circumstances of their departure, and Clarke's statements provided the first acknowledgment that the White House had any direct involvement in the plan and that senior administration officials had personally signed off on it. Clarke made his remarks in an article in Vanity Fair magazine published Thursday, and amplified them Wednesday in an interview and congressional testimony. The White House had no comment on his statements. The disclosure came just weeks after the classified portion of a congressional report on the Sept. 11 attacks suggested that Saudi Arabia had financial links to the hijackers. Clarke's comments are likely to fuel accusations that the United States has gone soft on the Saudis because of diplomatic concerns. Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, seized on Clarke's comments to call on the White House to conduct an investigation into the hasty departures of about 140 Saudis in the days after the attacks. Schumer said in an interview that he suspected some of the Saudis who were allowed to leave, particularly two relatives of bin Laden who he said had links to terrorist groups themselves, could have shed light on the events of Sept. 11. "This is just another example of our country coddling the Saudis,"' Schumer said. "It's almost as if we didn't want to find out what links existed." While FBI officials would not discuss details of the case, they said that in the days immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks bureau agents interviewed the adult relatives of bin Laden, members of a rich Saudi family, before the White House cleared them to leave. Bin Laden is said to be estranged from his family. "We did everything that needed to be done," said John Iannarelli, a bureau spokesman. "There's nothing to indicate that any of these people had any information that could have assisted us, and no one was accorded any additional courtesies that wouldn't have been accorded anyone else." But Vanity Fair quotes Dale Watson, the former head of counterterrorism at the FBI, as saying that the departing Saudis "were not subject to serious interviews or interrogations." Watson could not be reached for comment. The article depicts an elaborate but hurried evacuation, with private planes picking up Saudis from 10 U.S. cities. Some aviation and bureau officials said they had been upset by the operation because the government had not yet lifted flight restrictions for the general public, but said they had not had the power to stop it, the article says. Clarke, who left the White House in February, said in an interview that he was driven by concern for the safety of the Saudis after the hijackings. "We were concerned, just as the Saudis were concerned, that the Saudis and other Middle Easterners would be targeted for retribution," he said. He called the current criticism of the evacuation "a tempest in a teapot," adding that he had told the bureau to hold anyone it had suspicions about, and that the FBI had said it had not held anyone. Schumer said in a letter to the White House Wednesday that the Saudis appeared to have had "a free pass" despite possible knowledge about the attacks. "I find it hard to believe that two days after 9/11, the FBI would even know what questions to ask and who to ask it of," Schumer said in an interview. The New York Times

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	10/12/2003 11:07:53 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

'Why America Slept': Conspiracy of Silence The New York Times Book Review October 12, 2003 By ERIC LICHTBLAU Gerald Posner has built his literary career in no small part on debunking popular conspiracy theories. First came ''Case Closed,'' the well-received 1993 book in which Posner dismantled the arguments that John F. Kennedy's killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, did not act alone. Five years later, in ''Killing the Dream,'' he turned his investigative and writing skills to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in order to disabuse skeptics -- including members of King's own family -- of the notion that James Earl Ray was not the true killer. So it will no doubt surprise some of his followers to see Posner now tackling another seminal event in recent American history -- the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- in an effort not to shoot down conspiracy theories but to fuel them. The theory of ''Why America Slept,'' saved for the provocative final chapter of this smart and evocatively written book: the Saudis were in on it. The basis for this charge, Posner writes, is the C.I.A.'s interrogation of one of America's biggest catches in the campaign against Al Qaeda -- a senior aide to Osama bin Laden named Abu Zubaydah, who was captured in March 2002 in western Pakistan by American and Pakistani forces. Relying on two unnamed government sources to provide new information about the intelligence gleaned from the interrogation, Posner writes that C.I.A. interrogators manipulated the injured Zubaydah's pain medication to wear down his defenses. They tricked him into believing he was in Saudi custody -- and were then shocked to hear what a relieved Zubaydah finally had to tell them. He instructed them to call a senior member of the ruling Saudi family, Posner writes, and gave them a phone number from memory. ''He will tell you what to do,'' Zubaydah said. He went on to tell his interrogators that bin Laden had struck a deal in the late 1990's to gain the blessing and support of top Saudi leaders in exchange for assurances that his holy war would spare the Saudi kingdom. This testimony, an American investigator says, was ''the Rosetta stone of 9/11.'' Still more intriguing, three of the Saudi leaders whom the prisoner named as allies (including Prince Ahmed bin Salman, probably best known to Americans as the owner of the Kentucky Derby winner War Emblem) wound up dead within a week of one another in three separate incidents; a Pakistani military official also named by Zubaydah was killed seven months later in a plane crash. The allegations will no doubt provide grist for those eager to link the Saudis to the Sept. 11 attacks. But as with all conspiracy theories -- as Posner himself has shown in his past work -- there is reason for skepticism. Qaeda prisoners like Zubaydah have become notorious for providing misinformation to their captors, American officials have not rushed to broadcast the information prisoners have given them and the Saudis have vigorously denied any links to bin Laden, despite the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers hailed from the kingdom. (Last month, in fact, Saudi officials asserted that bin Laden intentionally recruited Saudis for the Sept. 11 mission in order to strain relations between the United States and the kingdom.) Still, Posner's reputation for sober, exhaustive journalism and his access to classified intelligence signal that his theory should not be dismissed out of hand. The preceding 18 chapters of ''Why America Slept'' reveal conspiracies of a much subtler but equally disastrous variety. As he traces the growth of Al Qaeda and Washington's never-ending turf battles in confronting terrorism in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks, Posner suggests that the government was victimized by what amounted to a conspiracy of silence. The assertion that America missed many warning signs that could have prevented 9/11 is, by now, an oft-heard one. What sets Posner's book apart is not only the accumulation of detail and the lively writing he uses to make that point but also the remarkable characters he develops to narrate that story. In one camp are those who warned for years about the rising threat of Islamic fundamentalism: people like Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism guru in the Clinton and Bush administrations; James Woolsey, the director of central intelligence under Bill Clinton, who had a hard time even getting the president's attention; and Neil Herman, the F.B.I. agent who led the investigation into the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and had sought three years before to show that the murder of Meir Kahane, the extremist rabbi, was part of a broader terrorist conspiracy. On the other side, Posner argues, are people like Clinton, George W. Bush and many of their senior advisers, who failed to give terrorism the urgent attention it demanded, and let repeated opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden slip away. Typical of this mind-set was the reception given a report on global terrorism released by the former senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman just days after Bush took office in 2001. The prescient report received scant attention in either the White House or the news media. ''It was not that the Bush administration did not think terror was an important issue, but rather that it did not take seriously a blue-ribbon panel's report that it considered better suited for a think tank discussion than for implementation as government policy. So Bush officials decided to set the administration's policy on fighting terrorism in their own time and style,'' Posner writes. Oddly, Posner mentions only in passing a briefing that Bush received on Aug. 6, 2001; it included speculation about the possibility of Qaeda operatives hijacking commercial airliners. And at times he seems a bit too fixated on the public's fascination with media spectacles like the O. J. Simpson trial and JonBenet Ramsey's murder, as if to suggest that journalists and the public were needlessly distracted from more important stories like terrorism. But fortunately, such diversions are rare in a narrative that takes on the frenetic pace of a spy thriller as it recounts two decades' worth of terrorist activity, clandestine plots, government malaise and fumbled opportunities that led up to the Sept. 11 attacks. This account, Posner writes, ''is a far more infuriating book'' than the one he set out to write. But in the ever-growing collection of volumes on the Sept. 11 tragedy and the lessons to be learned from it, ''Why America Slept'' should go down as one of the best. Eric Lichtblau covers the Justice Department and terrorism issues for The Times. nytimes.com Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	11/2/2003 2:38:50 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

The full truth of 9/11 courier-journal.com Unless there is a change of heart in the White House, the bipartisan federal commission created to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks may well have to issue subpoenas in order to gain access to key intelligence documents being withheld by the Bush administration. It is dismaying that the administration has stonewalled the commission-- and, in effect, the American people -- on arguably the most traumatic challenge the nation has faced since Pearl Harbor. The commission's chairman, Thomas H. Kean, a Republican and a former governor of New Jersey, was right to warn, "I will not stand for it." Americans should hope that Mr. Kean and the members of his commission, which was created by an act of Congress over the objections of the White House, hold their ground. At the heart of the struggle between the commission and administration appear to be the detailed daily intelligence briefings provided President Bush in the weeks leading up to the 9/11 tragedies. It is true that such reports are sensitive and highly classified and have rarely, if ever, been shared with Congress or outside agencies. It is also the case that administrations of both parties have long jealously guarded internal documents that advise presidents. But Mr. Kean argues compellingly that this situation is different. He points out that the commission represents neither Congress nor any other branch of government, and is a unique body toward which traditional defenses of presidential privilege should not apply. Unfortunately, this administration has a deep aversion to openness. That has been highlighted by the growing unhappiness of some Republican senators over the misleading and selective information given them about Iraq. It was also evidenced by the need of the Kean commission to subpoena dozens of boxes of documents that had been withheld by the Federal Aviation Administration. Not surprisingly, some commission members from both parties have accused the White House and Mr. Bush's re-election campaign of dragging their feet, so that the commission will not have the information it needs to issue a complete report by its May 2004 deadline that might politically embarrass the President. The White House and Republican supporters in Congress should bear in mind that commission findings that are based on an incomplete record would certainly give rise to conspiracy theories that would be far more alarming than the truth is likely to be. They should also recognize that Americans, and especially families of 9/11 victims, have a right to know the best analysis of how the attacks happened, what their government knew and how it acted on its knowledge. Even by this administration's low standards, it would be reprehensible to stymie the commission for purely political reasons.

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	11/9/2003 12:24:28 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 15516

9-11 Commission Votes to Subpoena Pentagon Fri Nov 7, 6:51 PM ET story.news.yahoo.com EXCERPT: By LAURENCE ARNOLD, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON -" A federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks voted Friday to subpoena the Pentagon (news - web sites) for documents related to the activities of U.S. air defenses on the day of the terrorist hijackings. The independent commission said it was "especially dismayed" by incomplete document production on the part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, the part of the Defense Department responsible for protecting North American airspace." (continued)

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	11/13/2003 2:00:58 AM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15516

High Court Will Hear Guantanamo Appeal Mon Nov 10, 6:27 PM ET story.news.yahoo.com By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear its first case arising from the war on terrorism, an appeal asking whether foreigners held at the U.S. Navy (news - web sites) base in Cuba may contest their captivity in American courts. The case concerns more than 650 prisoners held essentially incommunicado at Guantanamo Bay. The Bush administration maintains that because the men were picked up overseas on suspicion of terrorism and are being held on foreign land they may be detained indefinitely without charges or trial. The men, mostly Muslims, have no access to lawyers or other outsiders, and do not even know they are the subject of the case the court agreed to hear, according to lawyers who have taken up their cause. Some among them may eventually be tried before military tribunals, but the administration has not said when. How the court rules could affect those plans. The detentions are part of a global campaign against terrorism that has outraged civil liberties groups and left some U.S. allies grumbling. The administration has gained expanded powers to investigate and detain people suspected of terrorist links, has reorganized the way the government defends U.S. borders and has increased security at airports and other ports of entry. The Supreme Court passed up several earlier opportunities to hear terrorism cases. Continued....

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	11/16/2003 3:53:27 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

A Scary Afghan Road The New York Times November 15, 2003 OP-ED COLUMNIST By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Here's a foreign affairs quiz: 1. In the two years since the war in Afghanistan, opium production has: (A) virtually been eliminated by Hamid Karzai's government and American forces. (B) declined 30 percent, but eradication is not expected until 2008. (C) soared 19-fold and become the major source of the world's heroin. 2. In Paktika and Zabul, two religiously conservative parts of Afghanistan, the number of children going to school: (A) has quintupled, with most girls at least finishing third grade. (B) has risen 40 percent, although few girls go to school. (C) has plummeted as poor security has closed nearly all schools there. The correct answer to both questions, alas, is (C). With the White House finally acknowledging that the challenge in Iraq runs deeper than gloomy journalism, the talk of what to do next is sounding rather like Afghanistan. And that's alarming, because we have flubbed the peace in Afghanistan even more egregiously than in Iraq. "There is a palpable risk that Afghanistan will again turn into a failed state, this time in the hands of drug cartels and narco-terrorists," Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, writes in a grim new report on Afghanistan. I strongly supported President Bush's war in Afghanistan, and I was there in Kabul and saw firsthand the excitement and relief of ordinary Afghans, who were immensely grateful to the U.S. for freeing them (a crucial distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan, to anyone who covered both wars, is that you never saw the same adulation among Iraqis). Mr. Bush oversaw a smart war in Afghanistan, and two years ago the crisp mountain air there pullulated with hope - along with pleas for more security. One day back then when I was thinking of driving to the southeast, six Afghans arrived from there - minus their noses. Taliban guerrillas had stopped their vehicle at gunpoint and chopped off their noses because they had trimmed their beards. I stroked my chin, admired my own proboscis, and decided not to drive on that road. Every foreign and local official said then that Afghanistan desperately needed security on roads like that one. But the Pentagon made the same misjudgment about Afghanistan that it did about Iraq: it fatally underestimated the importance of ensuring security. The big winner was the Taliban, which is now mounting a resurgence. "Things are definitely deteriorating on the security front," notes Paul Barker, the Afghan country director for CARE International. Twelve aid workers have been killed in the last year and dozens injured. A year ago, there was, on average, one attack on aid workers per month; now such attacks average one per day. In at least three districts in the southeast, there is no central government representation, and the Taliban has de facto control. In Paktika and Zabul, not only have most schools closed, but the conservative madrasas are regaining strength. "We've operated in Afghanistan for about 15 years," said Nancy Lindborg of Mercy Corps, the American aid group, "and we've never had the insecurity that we have now." She noted that the Taliban used to accept aid agencies (grudgingly), but that the Taliban had turned decisively against all foreigners. "Separate yourself from Jews and the Christian community," a recent open letter from the Taliban warned. It ordered Afghans to avoid music, funerals for aid workers and "un-Islamic education" - or face a "bad result." The opium boom is one indication of the downward spiral. The Taliban banned opium production in 2000, so the 2001 crop was only 185 metric tons. The U.N. estimates that this year's crop was 3,600 tons, the second-largest in Afghan history. The crop is worth twice the Afghan government's annual budget, and much of the profit will support warlords and the Taliban. An analyst in the U.S. intelligence community, who seeks to direct more attention to the way narco-trafficking is destabilizing the region, says that Afghanistan now accounts for 75 percent of the poppies grown for narcotics worldwide. "The issue is not a high priority for the Bush administration," he said. If Afghanistan is a White House model for Iraq, heaven help us. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company nytimes.com

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	12/18/2003 11:37:34 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

Ashcroft Is Rebuked by U.S. Judge: The attorney general apologizes for twice violating a gag order issued in a high-profile Detroit terrorism trial. latimes.com By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON - In an extraordinary rebuke, a federal judge Tuesday publicly admonished Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft for violating a gag order covering a high-profile terrorism case in Detroit, prompting the attorney general to issue an unusual apology to the court for his remarks. U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen, who is considering overturning two convictions in the case based on other alleged government misconduct, said Ashcroft had violated an October 2001 order he issued seeking to limit out-of-court statements by attorneys in the case, which was the first major criminal trial stemming from the Sept. 11 investigations. "The Attorney General's Office exhibited a distressing lack of care in issuing potentially prejudicial statements about this case," Rosen said in his 81-page ruling. Acknowledging that the attorney general has a dual role of keeping the public informed about the war on terrorism and ensuring that defendants are accorded a fair trial, "in this case, this essential balance was jeopardized," the judge wrote. That trial culminated in June with a jury convicting two North African immigrants of providing material support to terrorists, among other charges, for being part of what prosecutors contended was a domestic "sleeper cell." The emotionally charged case was the first test of the Bush administration's efforts to prosecute suspected terrorists, centered in a community with a large Mideastern population. The defendants were arrested six days after the Sept. 11 attacks; the judge said he imposed the gag order early to "lower the volume" to ensure that the case would be tried in court. In his rebuke, Rosen ruled that Ashcroft violated the order on two "lamentable" occasions, including at an October 2001 news conference when he suggested that the defendants had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks, and last spring when he praised a key government witness in the case during the trial. The Justice Department subsequently retracted its statement insinuating that the defendants were involved in the Sept. 11 plot. The judge, an appointee of President Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, said he was also concerned about apparent government leaks to the news media in August 2002 of a superseding indictment in the case that added terrorism-related charges, but added there wasn't any evidence that Ashcroft was involved in "this troubling episode." Defense lawyers strenuously objected to Ashcroft's comments when they were made, but Rosen elected to deal with them after the trial was over. Throughout, he periodically held closed-door emergency sessions with top Justice Department officials to impress upon them his concerns. Rosen said the breaches continued despite the warnings, and said he was concerned that Ashcroft "apparently did not take sufficient steps" to ensure compliance with the order by his staff. The judge found that "a public and formal judicial admonishment" was the appropriate sanction, which he described as "the most modest among the range of disciplinary measures that may be imposed upon attorneys." Defense lawyers in the case had asked the judge to hold Ashcroft in criminal contempt or require him to appear at a hearing to explain his actions. Rosen said he decided not to take more severe action because there was "insufficient evidence of willful misconduct or prejudice." The judge had polled jurors during the trial to see if any had heard or read of Ashcroft's comments, and none said they had. In a Nov. 26 letter to the court that Rosen unsealed Tuesday, Ashcroft said his remarks were "entirely inadvertent," and said he didn't intend to disregard the order or to disrupt the court proceedings. "I regret making these statements," the attorney general wrote. "I made a mistake in making statements that could have been considered by the court to be a breach of the court's order. And for that I apologize to the court and counsel." Legal ethics specialists said they could not recall a time when a sitting attorney general was the recipient of professional discipline by a court. "It is extremely unusual for an attorney general to breach an order, and extremely unusual to apologize for it," said Deborah Rhode, a professor of law at Stanford Law School. "It is unusual for this attorney general to apologize for anything connected with national security." Rosen is considering a defense request to reverse the convictions, based on the failure of prosecutors to turn over a letter written in December 2001 accusing a key government witness of lying in the case.

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	12/30/2003 3:08:24 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Living dangerously, but what other option is there? Britain faces a terrorist attack and ministers cannot ignore that threat Martin Kettle Tuesday December 30, 2003 The Guardian The following is an excerpt: "As 2003 draws to its close, it is surely al-Qaida, rather than the repercussions of Iraq, that casts a darker shadow over Britain's future. If the mass of intelligence flowing across the prime minister's desk pointed to a continuing terrorist threat a year ago, then how much truer is that statement today? We are a target, Blair said a year ago. Well, we are no less of one today. The threat from al-Qaida is real, he went on. That threat is no less real now. There is no such thing as 100% security against a serious enemy, he added. That is also every bit as true now as then. Since 9/11, most western governments have operated on the assumption that their countries will be a target some time. This is not mere general prudence. It is cold-eyed and urgent realism. In the past few weeks alone, al-Qaida and its allies have mounted two assassination attempts on Pakistan's leader and have carried out a pair of devastating missions in Istanbul. We know they have the means and the motives. We must assume they merely await their opportunities. It is only a matter of time before some flaw in our own defences allows an attack to take place in Europe that is as devastating as those that occurred in Istanbul. Ministers say it is beyond doubt that Britain will one day be a target. How far this would be a consequence of Blair's pro-American policy over Iraq is an inevitable question, but recent terror-related cancellations of Air France transatlantic flights imply that Osama bin Laden is no respecter of individual national stances on the war. Exactly where and how such terrorism will come to Britain is unknowable. That it will come here somehow is surely not. Planes are the most obvious means, as 9/11 itself and the shoe-bomber Richard Reid have proved. But planes are not the only means. Talk of a Bin Laden plan to hijack the new Queen Mary 2 on its maiden voyage may be so much silly season hype, but it is not inconceivable. The carnage in the 1917 Halifax harbour disaster stands as a permanent reminder that a ship bomb in a crowded harbour has to be taken very seriously in a world in which piracy is so widespread and so easy. No one who flies to a place like Saudi Arabia can be unaware of the risks they currently run. Last night's car bomb in Riyadh was a fresh reminder that these can be dangerous places for people from open societies. The Mail on Sunday's claim that the Saudis have arrested two terrorists planning a suicide attack on a BA jumbo in Riyadh has not been confirmed, but it is a disturbing straw in the increasingly threatening wind. This forms the all too credible background to the decision by the government to deploy sky marshals on selected passenger flights across the Atlantic and on some other routes. The decision has been denounced by the pilots' union as dangerous, and mocked by some commentators as too headline grabbing. Yet if, as most of us want, the planes are to be kept flying in the face of the terrorists' fanatical determination to bring them down, then what are governments supposed to do? It is all very well complaining that the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, is making life more dangerous in the air. In some ways, he may be. Yet if a suicide hijack succeeds, killing hundreds of people, the first question that will be asked is why stronger measures were not taken to protect the victims. Questions of this kind mark the difference between the lives that ministers and the rest of us live. Most people give these risks only occasional and passing attention. To us, the thought that we may all be murdered in our beds is remote. To hapless ministers, it is a serious possibility for which they must try to prepare, and for which they will be held accountable when it occurs. In 2004, there is a greater likelihood than at any time since 1945 that large numbers of civilians will be the victims of an act of pitiless aggression. Most of us deal with this fear by ignoring it. For a Blair or a Darling, there is no such luxury. Just occasionally, perhaps, we should have the humility to see the awfulness of the world that they inhabit, and which they strive so unavailingly to control." martin.kettle@guardian.co.uk guardian.co.uk

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	12/30/2003 3:10:55 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

US tells airlines to use marshals The US has said international flights to or over the country will be required to carry armed guards in certain cases. news.bbc.co.uk The US Secretary for Homeland Security, Tom Ridge said flights could be banned if airlines refused to comply. The US decision comes amid renewed fears that terrorists may be trying to use aircraft to stage a new attack. The UK has already announced it will put undercover armed police on some flights - a move opposed by many pilots and some airlines. Germany's Lufthansa airline began carrying sky marshals on some flights to the US after the 11 September attacks, a spokesman said. Protective action The US directive, which has come into immediate effect, applies to passenger and cargo flights, even if they are just passing through American airspace. "This is another in a long list of measures that we have taken in the last two and a half years to increase aircraft security," US Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said at a news conference. "This is an international challenge that we all have."

To: Mephisto who wrote (7229)	2/1/2004 5:43:15 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

Panel Reveals U.S. Missteps Ahead of 9/11 story.news.yahoo.com By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - At a two-day hearing this week, the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks revealed U.S. authorities had numerous opportunities to stop the hijackers, including many face-to-face encounters. The missteps included miscommunications about al-Qaida operatives dating back to the mid-1990s, hijackers who were allowed to repeatedly enter the United States even with false or the wrong visa papers, and missed chances to stop suspects at airport security checkpoints despite warning signs. "We were asleep. Opportunities were lost," said former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican who chairs the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. "The hijackers analyzed our system and developed a plan they felt sure would beat it in every case, and 19 out of 19 succeeded." Congress established the commission to study the nation's preparedness before Sept. 11, 2001, its response to the attacks, and to recommend ways to prevent such disasters. The errors documented by the commission date back to just after the 1993 World Trade Center bombings and continued until the fateful day in 2001. The panel found airline security stopped nine of the 19 hijackers on the day of the attacks but let them go. All five of the hijackers on American Airlines Flight 77 at Dulles International Airport outside Washington were flagged as security risks. All that was required then was that their checked bags be searched for explosives. None was found, so they were allowed to board. Three of them also had carry-ons that set off alarms on X-ray belts. However, despite one or two additional checks, they successfully got on the plane with pocket knives and box cutters. That plane crashed into the Pentagon (news - web sites). Three of the five hijackers on American Airlines Flight 11 from Logan International Airport in Boston, as well as one hijacker on United Airlines Flight 93 from Newark International Airport in New Jersey, also were stopped as potential security risks. But they were allowed to board after their baggage tested negative for explosives. The panel also found FBI (news - web sites) and CIA (news - web sites) officials did not share knowledge about al-Qaida or played down that information with customs, immigration and FAA (news - web sites) officials. Consequently, some of the hijackers escaped capture despite questioning by customs officials after they submitted improper visa forms or acted suspiciously. The commission said if military intelligence were shared about al-Qaida and their tendency to travel on Saudi passports, authorities would have known to stop them. But at least two and as many as eight of the hijackers were allowed to enter on fraudulent visas. Six of the hijackers eluded detection even though they overstayed their visas or failed to attend the English language school for which their visas were issued. "The evidence is pretty damning," said Michael Greenberger, director of the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland. "There were many signals to the White House that we were in a state of high danger in the summer of 2001, yet no leadership was exercised to shake the agencies down." Two known al-Qaida operatives were on a special terrorist watch list known as Tipoff, but airline officials were unaware because it was separate from the FAA's list of people barred from flying. A former FAA official acknowledged at Monday's hearing he had not known until this week that Tipoff existed. "The question is, can you take an institution like the FBI and change its culture so it is focused on prevention of acts of terrorism rather than prosecution of criminal acts," said former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., the panel's vice chairman. "That's a major question in homeland security." The panel faces a May 27 deadline. It wants two more months to complete its work but faces resistance from House GOP leaders and the Bush administration. They fear the process could become too politicized if it's released in the days near the November elections. Kean has said many midlevel officials clearly could have prevented the attacks, but has reserved judgment on top officials in the Bush and Clinton administrations. The panel is seeking interviews with Bush and Clinton and plans to meet soon with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites). "We'll pursue every lead and follow the trail wherever it goes," he said. "When our report comes out, we're not going to mince words."