|
|
|
There's been a lot in the news in the last couple weeks about the FBI having ignored suspicions prior to last September's attacks on the US, perhaps out of fear of being accused of racial profiling. The question I haven't seen answered (or even asked) anywhere is whether the suspicions of the FBI field agents actually were reasonable, given the evidence available to them, or whether this was just a case of, "they're Arabs; they must be terrorists." Does anybody here have a good feel for the answer to that?
67 responses total.
There is credible evidence that the request for search warrants for the '20th hijacker' was modified by FBIHQ for political reasons such that FBIHQs own 'PC' squad then rejected it prior to submission to a judge. In retrospect it was obviously an error. It is also probable that the results of the search had the warrant been approved would not have prevented the events of 9/11. (Otherwise we would already have heard that as it would have been leaked.) Profiling has its place, but there is something to be said for the practice of personal responsability where in order to get a warrant an 'agent' must swear an oath (under penalty of falsehood) that s/he has knowlege justifying the warrant.
The news I've heard has made it sound more like the FBI had information that might have lead them to suspect an attack, if all the pieces had been put together, but the individual bits of info were all in different offices in different parts of the country and no one person saw them all. I've also heard commentary to the effect of "if they'd tried to do something, the liberals would have complained it was racial profiling," but mostly from opinion columnists, so I don't give it much weight.
The Register has an item today basically saying that these disclosures ane probably a ploy to give more power to the FBI.
That's a bit too conspiratorial for my taste, but I'll admit it's not terribly far fetched. The end result is looking about the same -- they're going to partner with the CIA again, essentially bringing us back to the Hoover days.
I'm concerned about this, since I keep reading articles like the one in today's San Francisco Chronicle, including quotes from these FBI memos that don't sound like justifiable suspicions to me. The Oklahoma City memo apparrently said that an agent had "observed large numbers of Middle Eastern males receiving flight training at Oklahoma airports in recent months." What the articles don't say is whether that was the extent of the cited evidence, or if there was more to it than that. In hindsight, we know something was coming, but if that's the evidence they had at the time, I'm glad to hear FBI management quashed it. Middle Eastern men who aren't terrorists should be able to get flight training without harrassment.
I agree. If these warnings that the FBI got were anything like the warnings that we have been blessed with constantly since 9/11, what good were they? How can you do anything about a vague threat that "something big is going to happen soon"?
Don't worry, we're safe from terrorism as long as we don't give 'aid and comfort' to our enemies by criticizing Bush.
#77> Yeah! and don't merely fly the American flag: Fly your family, for tourism is just as good as giving Old Samma Bin Lousen the bird. As long as the American way of consummerism prevails, the wtc shall not have perished in vain.
#5, last paragraph> Don't let Ann Coulter hear you say that.
Good grief.
One of the 'smoking gun' memos, the one from phoenix I believe, that proved "Bush Knew" speculated that arab terrorist might train pilots to use small planes to spray bio/rad. No mention of flying large commercial aircraft into buildings.
Wouldn't the thought come easily to mind? Hijackings were considered possible (answer: play along). Flying into buildings was possible (answer: only a small plane would be used????). There is a mental lapse there.
I dunno - I think it's a bit of a stretch. Sounds to me like an idea that one could patent.
..or at least wager money on ..
Re #4: It's not conspiratorial at all to note that the FBI always wants more power (name an agency that doesn't), and 9/11 was the perfect pretext to get it. The big security act (USA PATRIOT act?) passed last year contained a laundry-list of old requests that couldn't be moved until the attacks provided the ideological cover.
The issue isn't about whether or not to accept a conspiracy theory, it's about which conspiracy theory to accept. IF the memos don't reveal anything beyond hints, then the current hullaballoo is a conspiracy by the FBI to gain more power by discrediting the JD's current budgetary outlays. IF the memos DO reveal anything beyond hints, then the current hullaballoo represents an act of the White House to disregard warnings with the knowledge that a severe terrorist act against the US would do exactly what it did... boost the President's approval rating skyhigh. Either way, the seafood in Copenhagen is past its prime.
That last line was great. :)
Hey, if they want to bond together, I say "Great!" We must protect our nation at all costs, as especially evident after 9\11.
Are you really on the radical right, or are you just trying to piss people off?
Re #18: What did you say your nation was again?
The Taliban's agenda is to have our culture more closely comform to their culture. And the way they've set about doing that is incredibly clever in it's simplicity. They'll blow up a few buildings full of people then sit back and watch as our fear (and Ashcroft) does the rest. It's working like a trained pig.
#18> If we abide by the costs Ashcroft and Bush would like to extract, the essence of our nation will be lost, and there will be nothing left to protect.
Re #21: I appreciate the sentiments, but would appreciate a cite to any
reliable source that claims that's the Taliban's agenda. Everything
I've seen suggests that their agenda is either (1) get the US out
of the Moslem world so they can make it conform to their perverted
version of Islam, or (2) start an all-out war with the Evil West so
Bin Laden could become the new Saladin, unify the Moslem world, and
see (1) above.
Actually, what I'm saying refers to Al Qaeda. As far as I know,
the Taliban's only agenda was to govern Afghanistan according to
their twisted version of Islamic law.
Al Quaeda is definitely focused on America "the evil" -- but it's not just the moslem world in general -- they're specifically concerned with israel, also saudi arabia, and they definitely see the US as weak. It's not clear to me what they think of human human rights or liberty in the abstract [if anything, the evidence is they don't care much for them], but at least in regard to the US, they definitely think of the US as being hypocritical. Here are some interviews with bin laden & his friends: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/04/16/1018333492728.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1590000/1590251.s tm http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/binladen.transcript/index.html http://www.anusha.com/osamaint.htm
The US *is* hypocritical on the topic: we talk a good game about rights and civil liberties, while at the same time propping up a number of abusive regimes in the Arab world (and elsewhere) because we're afraid that the alternatives will be worse. Or at least wouldn't sell us oil at the same prices. Of course, the alternatives -- where the alternatives are fundamentalist Islamic parties -- almost certainly *would* be worse for everyone except male members of those parties, but people suffering under a repressive and corrupt government may be willing to take the chance. Marcus, I wasn't looking for citations that Al Qaeda dislikes the US, I was looking for citations that they specifically want us to become more restrictive of our own citizens.
No argument on US hypocrisy (witness US w/r/t cuba/china). Clearly bin
ladin style islam has little to recommend it to most in the west,
although there are elements of its thinking that are uncomfortably close
to elements of some of the religious right.
Some quotes from the above URLs:
"Freedom and human rights in America are doomed.
..
"The values of this Western civilization under the leadership
of America have been destroyed. Those awesome symbolic towers
that speak of liberty, human rights, and humanity have been
destroyed. They have gone up in smoke."
..
"Let the United States know that the battle will continue to be
waged on its territory until it leaves our land, stops its
support for the Jews, and lifts the unjust embargo on the Iraqi
people."
..
"American soldier was just a paper tiger."
..
"The American government is leading the country towards hell."
..
"After World War II, the Americans grew more unfair and more
oppressive towards people in general and Muslims in
particular."
There's a certain amount of inconsistency in the various interviews. In
some, bin Laden denies any interest in what americans think. In others,
he has a specific message for americans. In some, he draws a
distinction between the US gov't & US people, in others, he makes it
clear he regards both as equivalent; equally valid targets. Clearly,
unless directed by specific questions, when talking about american, he's
mostly interested in talking about how evil and weak the US is, about
assorted evil things they've done in the "arab world". If he had the
opportunity, it sounds like he'd turn america into something very like
afghanistan - if he didn't go for the glass plain option instead.
This is the key point here:
"Let the United States know that the battle will continue to be
waged on its territory until it leaves our land, stops its
support for the Jews, and lifts the unjust embargo on the Iraqi
people."
re: "#21 of 27: by Mary Remmers (mary): The Taliban's agenda is to have our culture more closely comform to their culture. And the way they've set about doing that is incredibly clever in it's simplicity. They'll blow up a few buildings full of people then sit back and watch as our fear (and Ashcroft) does the rest. It's working like a trained pig." and "#22 of 27: by Paul Kershaw (brighn): #18> If we abide by the costs Ashcroft and Bush would like to extract, the essence of our nation will be lost, and there will be nothing left to protect." Loathe as I am to quote anything written by most NYT columnists, perhaps you two could benefit by a recent piece from Nicholas Kristof, who wrote that "civil libertarians are . . . dishonest in refusing to acknowledge the trade off between public security and individual freedom . . . One reason aggressive (FBI) agents were restrained . . . is that liberals like myself . . . have regularly excoriated law enforcement authorities for taking shortcuts and engaging in racial profiling. As long as we are pointing fingers, we should peer into the mirror. "The timidity of bureau headquarters is indefensible. But it reflected . . . an environment (that we who care about civil liberties helped create) in which officials were afraid of being assailed as insensitive storm troopers. "So it is time for civil libertarians to examine themselves with the same rigor with which we are prone to examine others."
It's always a balance between "security" and "usability". Sometimes, we come down more toward one end, other times, more toward the other. However, giving up usability may be secure but is . . . useless. Similarly, giving up essential liberty for safety results in neither. And yeah, that's old. Doesn't make it any less true.
Re #28: Gee, so you found a self-flagellating liberal to quote. Big deal. Maybe you missed that such noted left-wingers as William Safire and Congressman Sennsenbruner have also criticized the Bush administration. Or maybe you missed college, or at least the part about "compare and contrast." Everything *didn't* change 9/11. The WTC had been attacked before and the government was well aware that other attacks were coming. Hell, certain Americans (myself included) expected something to happen sometime. Sure, it was still a shock. But that's not the same as surprise. Another thing to compare and contrast is how previous attempts had been successfully prevented, UNDER THE OLD RULES. Got any idea on the number? Here's a hint, it's more than 100. Under the old rules. As Safire wrote, those rules worked for Reagan, they worked for Bush Sr and the worked for Clinton. They worked, period. Shrub has failed to articulate any good reasons why those rules that worked before are suddenly unworkable now. 9/11 didn't occur because the new rules weren't in place. It occured because of a failure of our intelligence operations, which couldn't efficiently process the information it had. Information which, BTW, was obtained UNDER THE OLD RULES.
I read the same piece as klg did, and actually thought it was pretty reasonable at the time, although I don't remember it that well. The thing is, there _is_ a tradeoff between openness and security. Protecting against espionage and terrorism is much harder in a country with fairly open borders and a high degree of personal freedom. It's not an absolute tradeoff, mind you -- you can be more secure or less secure at a given level of freedom, and more free or less free at a given level of security -- but it's a very real one. Both sides of the debate seem to recognize the tradeoff, in fact. Very few people are claiming that we'd all be safer if the INS backed down, or that we'd end up with more personal freedom if we let the government do whatever they wanted in the name of security. Instead, both sides are acknowledging the tradeoff between freedom and security, and saying that one is more valuable than the other. The liberal argument boils down to "I'd rather live with a little more risk than live in a police state," and the conservative argument boils down to "I'd rather be safe in my own home than place all these restrictions on the government." So fine, let's be honest about it. I'm in favor of civil liberties, and I admit that the liberties I favor place me at a higher risk of all sorts of things, including terrorism. That's a trade that I would willingly make, without trying to deny the consequences. If you can't say the same, then you're not really in favor of civil liberties, you're just an idealist.
Actually, the conservative argument seems to be, "I want to be safe in my home and business from government intrusion, regulation or limitation and I'll support a strong police and military so long as they are only used in ways that don't threaten me, my income, my friends, my family or my religious beliefs. Oh, and if that commie weirdo down the street comes anywhere near me or my business, I want him arrested and deported."
Well, that's just as ridiculous as the idealist argument that everyone should just be nice and get along, and there should be no cops _or_ war. But, contrary to popular belief, there are conservatives who don't have their heads up their asses. (I don't think they're any more or less common than their non-craniorectal equivalents on the liberal side of the fence, actually).
I suspect there are other things we can do that would increase our security without compromising our liberties. There are many aspects of our foreign policy that seem more oriented around greed than security.
#28, #31> I'm not sure I get the point. #28 is implying that my attitude about civil liberties is carefree, and that perhaps I hold some bitter resentment towards the FBI for letting all those innocent people die, if only... If only klg read my posts more carefully. I've been consistent, since 9/11 and I daresay before then. Here are the extremes: Total safety, no liberties. The government designs cars to strap us in, immovable except for our arms and feet; the government bans guns, drugs, fat, sugar, coal, cigarettes, knives, forks, belts, glass...; the government installs multiple cameras in every room of our house, every park in our cities, every nook of our airpors. We are in no risk of dying of anything until our cancerous tumor eats us up at 99. Total liberty, no safety. The government ceases to exist. We can go where we please, buy what we want, take what drugs suit us, shoot other people for recreation, and so forth. Anarchy rules. Now, if we're to maintain a civil society with a respect for liberty, we need to find a spot somewhere on the scale created by the extremes. That's what the trade-offs are all about. Am I sad that thousands of people died in the WTC? Of course, what sort of animal do I look like? Am I sad that the WTC has been destroyed? Yes. Am I afraid that someday, somehow, I might be on an airplane, or in public, or in my own home, and some madman with a knife or a gun or a bomb in his shoe will kill me? It doesn't fill my every thought, but sure, that anxiety has passed through my thoughts now and then. Am I willing to allow the FBI to deny people rights because they're of Arabic descent, and for no other reason? ARE YOU INSANE? Am I willing to allow the FBI to tap my phonelines because I'm vocal in my disdain for President Bush? Not hardly. Am I willing to accept that the cost of my unwillingness to fall victim to the Bush Administration's paranoia is a greater risk to my own life, and to the lives of people I care about? Yes, I accept this. I would rather die with my liberties than live as a slave to a domineering government. I write these words now, but they could just as easily have been written by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, or Patrick Henry. The people whose beliefs form the intellectual backbone of this country. Now, I repeat: If Bush gets want he wants, the essence of our nation will be lost, and there will be nothing left to protect.
Re: 28 Hey, I read that article and I'll say here what I thought then. If the FBI and CIA had been doing a better job with the legal tools they had we'd be in better shape. So I see no real need to rip our rights to shreds at this point. The problem with our security isn't that they can't gather the pertinent information. It's that they can't figure out what to do with information they already have.
#36> That's roughly my position on Hate Crimes: We have the laws already. We shouldn't create more laws because the ones we have are being incompetently applied. We don't need to give the CIA and the FBI more powers because they don't know how to use the ones they already have.
Re #31: Unfortunately, your straw-man conservative (you really mean "police-state advocate") position doesn't guarantee safety either. Giving too much power to the police means that the police become more of a threat to life, liberty and safety than the putative criminals (think J. Edgar Hoover here). Even letting the police snoop too much is dangerous. Some FBI agents were just indicted on stock-manipulation charges for using information from their databases to make companies look bad and profit by selling short. It would be really easy to profit politically the same way, and there wouldn't be any futures transactions pointing back at the perps either...
For every lead that came into the FBI or the CIA in the past year that may have directly pointed to the really stupid but effective tactic of the murder-bombers of 9/11 there where at least 10 that had nothing to do with or lead elswhere. This is a fact. Hindsite is always 20/20 and that is exactly what 'they' count on. The more they can 'dirty' up the system and force us to respond to every rumor and hint so much the better. From a counter-intelligence standpoint you selectively release story and then observe your oponents response - you tell three people that you intend to bomb the Golden Gates and then when your opforce reacts you now know one or more of three are compromised. Duh.
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss