On an individual basis, I'm sure. But [[not]] from a regulatory, organizational and structural standpoint. I don't think so. As long as the agencies view themselves as rival fiefdoms, as opposed friendly fiefdoms, there are going to be some big holes in the system.<hr></blockquote>
Granted.
Now, how do you get rid of the rivalry? Think about where that rivalry stems from. You're effectively asking people in the FBI and CIA to elevate themselves above the human condition (ambition, greed, jealousy, mind games, etc.). Even though we don't look at it as such, those people work in a business and are subject to the same kinds of human pitfalls and weaknesses rival businesses suffer from. Albeit for different reasons and with a wholly different kind of service/product - and a wholly different set of results when something goes awry.
But the question I pose still stands. How do you address all those things I mentioned? Complete overhaul of the CIA and FBI. Fine. In the end (two, three years from now??) maybe we have a much more cooperative and useful set of intelligence agencies - what happens to us in the meantime? Does reforming their "business practices" (how information flows, adjusting the CoC, adjusting legal policies, etc.) take precedent over doing what they're doing now - i.e. trying to deal with the information they have as best they can right NOW?
[quote]It doesn't matter if there are new measures. They can get rid of all the measures and replace it with a few for all I care. The only ruler they should be using is whether the measures work or not. <hr></blockquote>
The obvious retort to which is, how do you determine if a new security measure is going to "work" without trying it? Which goes back to my whole point of, they don't want to keep throwing solutions out there without doing some serious risk analysis and intelligence work first. It's not like they can say, "OK, we're going to use a combinatin of X dozen armed MPs, two Acme Bomb Sniffers and new metal detectors" without discerning whether the money spent on all those things would do any good.
[quote]The only airline measures that make any sense are reinforced cockpit and air marshalls....<hr></blockquote>
I disagree. I think the current airport situation is a failure only in the sense that they STILL don't require passengers to match up with all luggage, boxes and the like. That is such a no-brainer that they don't need to analyze it. So, why haven't they done it? I'll tell you why - because it would royally piss off many of the people in airports you have thus far perceived to be "patient." Because as soon as you cross-check every bag, box and suitcase with a person onboard the aircraft, you by definition will have fewer flights, higher airfares and of course more waiting. Yet another example of steps most Americans are NOT willing to take.
[quote]No. I don't think so. The more you share your plans, the more holes you can plug. The media as envisioned by the Constitution protects the people from a corrupt government. It's a bad day when that becomes the opposite. Though I would agree that the profession has been compromised by the need to make money.<hr></blockquote>
Sorry, but the fact is journalists today feed on negative news. If they are allowed to cover all the facets of a specific security plan for a specific kind of target, they will by default go out of their way to let everyone (including the terrorists) know how they can be exploited. Plug the holes? Too late. Once the terrorists find out about them, they're going to "plug" us. Think about the speed at which our government implements things like this. How quick will that fix you're talking about take? A week? Six weeks? Six months?
The answer is, long enough for the terrorists to use the information they've been given as a weapon - every time. Screw the news media. If they want to report on the kinds of things we've been hearing lately fine. They can pretend they're a part of the checks and balances. But when it comes to details about security plans, they should be out of the loop - at leas until details of said plans become public knowledge via other means.
[quote]Also, there is nothing the media can do that alters the responsibilities of government officials. They still have the responsibility of gathering, analyzing and disseminating terrorism information no matter how much scrutiny they fall under.<hr></blockquote>
I never argued otherwise. I'm saying the news media --if allowed to report on whatever they choose -- will effectively undercut our own government by spreading information they have no business spreading during this particular crisis.
[quote]I'm for open government. Open and public Sept 11 investigation done by independents.<hr></blockquote>
Who? How will that independant body get the information it needs without being stone-walled?
[quote]90% of the classified information in the government doesn't need to be classified.<hr></blockquote> That's probably an exaggerated number, but I would agree if they can speed up their response times by de-classifying some of the data (and thus cutting out some of the bureaucrats), they should.
[quote]Yes, they have a difficult job. It's also their job. If they can't stop a well funded group of people from committing a massive act terror, then they are broken. The Sept 11 terrorists weren't even that professional to begin with. It's a given that it'll be impossible to stop a loner from doing something, but when it involves money and more than 1 or 2 people, the amount of info available should be enough.<hr></blockquote>
I think you're WAY oversimplifying how easy it is to uncover -- and then STOP -- a plot by a dozen or so people spread across several countries - especially in a fundamentally open one like the US. They may not have been that highly trained or sohpisticated in certain respects, but they were well organized and they knew how to lay low for the most part. That's all they need to succeed.
[quote]The gov't doesn't have to do anything illegal. They just need to break one link in a chain of events. That could have kept track of said flight students, increasing airline security, performing deeper background checks, etc....<hr></blockquote>
More over-simplifications IMO. Increase airline security nation-wide, as a result of an ongoing investigation that doesn't even have enough evidence (yet) to bring criminal charges? I don't think so. No meaningful increases anyway. How do you justify millions of dollars worth of security expenses based on a loose collection of facts like the ones the FBI and CIA had to go on? You think Congress would buy the "We have a very serious threat; we're working on rounding up the suspects in a legal manner, meantime, we need $400M for some new airport security equipment....." Not in America friend. We only spend the big bucks when we've already taken one on the chin. That applies to security, military spending, healthcare, and anything else. Our government is by definition reactive in the way they allocated funds - there's no way in hell they'd shell out big money on a "perceived" threat. Not until 9/11 they wouldn't.
[quote]The point of my argument is that you can have both ways. It requires the law enforcement and security agencies to be on the ball. The media is irrelevant to their jobs. Politicians are however a problem since they control the money and the policy. But isn't that up to us? They can be voted out.<hr></blockquote>
Define "on the ball" - how do they get there? And bad politicians voted out - and replaced by whom?
The CIA, FBI and NSA not only need to work closely together, they need to be merged in my opinion. With the combined resources of the these organizations, they should be better preparedfor future threats and handle them in a timely manner instead of after the fact.
I've got my facts straight just like you did when you said I was accusing the president of treason. I was just asking a question. " Did he turn his head " ? is very different than " he turned his head and let this happen ". Which for clarity's sake I will state that.......I didn't say.
I've got my facts straight just like you did when you said I was accusing the president of treason. I was just asking a question. " Did he turn his head " ? is very different than " he turned his head and let this happen ". Which for clarity's sake I will state that.......I didn't say.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
For clarity?s sake your full question was, ?Did he turn his head and look the other way??
I replied, ?No he didn't. If he did, then he would be guilty of the worst treason imaginable and I for one would be calling for his head.?
You then responded by not by saying I had misunderstood you. Instead you wrote, ?How can you be sure??
Now you are claiming that I seem to think Watergate was a small thing. What I actually wrote was, ?Watergate pales in comparison to what you are suggesting. The two are in no way comparable - and Watergate was pretty bad.?
I don't know what you think you are accomplishing here. You're not going to bulldoze this one past me.
Honestly I don't know what YOU think your'e accomplishing here.
Ok lets get down to it here.
A. I am not accusing the president of treason I'm just saying it's not impossible. It's one question of many. He did gain in popularity and in other ways because of this. If it hadn't happened he might have been the under dog because of the economy. Any good attorney would ask these questions if it was just someone off the street.
B. I think Watergate was almost as bad ( if the president had anything to do with this crisis ). While it didn't involve the deaths of thousands it affected the lives of millions.
C. You would be pretty stupid to look the other way in a crisis like this but, how smart is it to try rig a national election. All I'm saying is it's possible not impossible.
D. Don't you find it more than a little odd that someone could run an airliner into the pentigon without all manner of things targeting it and taking it out?
I'll admit I don't like Bush and didn't vote for him ( not that there was much of a choice last time ). And no I don't see a conspiracy under every bush ( no pun intended ) but, since Watergate ( and my US history teacher way back in high school who taught me a lot about the truth of how history is written ) I don't take anything at face value.
If you dig deep enough you will probably find some dirt. Unfortunately it tends to be human nature.
But the question I pose still stands. How do you address all those things I mentioned? Complete overhaul of the CIA and FBI. Fine. In the end (two, three years from now??) maybe we have a much more cooperative and useful set of intelligence agencies - what happens to us in the meantime?</strong>
My idea would be to centralize the information in computerized databases and to flatten the command structure of the CIA and FBI. A centralized information database would be shared between the FBI and the CIA. By command structure, I mean the local offices would have more autonomy in their work and are not as beholding to their headquarters. The field agents and those above them would have more power to investigate without the approval of headquarters. The reorganization would occur one local office at a time.
What happens to us in the meantime? The transition has to be slow, but it needs to be done. Look at what's happening to us right now, a year after the warnings. We're still receiving vague warnings of terrorism. So it looks like the status quo, not to mention bombing Afganistan, hasn't secured our safety nor has does the FBI and CIA seem more effective.
<strong>The only airline measures that make any sense are reinforced ****pit and air marshalls....
I disagree. I think the current airport situation is a failure only in the sense that they STILL don't require passengers to match up with all luggage, boxes and the like. That is such a no-brainer that they don't need to analyze it. So, why haven't they done it?</strong>
How does this stop hijackings? How does it stop suicide bombings? I'm not even sure what you mean by matching.
<strong>I'll tell you why - because it would royally piss off many of the people in airports you have thus far perceived to be "patient." Because as soon as you cross-check every bag, box and suitcase with a person onboard the aircraft, you by definition will have fewer flights, higher airfares and of course more waiting. Yet another example of steps most Americans are NOT willing to take.</strong>
Use a computer, scanner, and ID tags on lugguge. It will then be invisible. If a person's luggage gets on board, and you don't, then they can figure out what has happened.
I think the reason the DOT doesn't want to institute good security measures is because of money and because they lack some spine.
<strong>Sorry, but the fact is journalists today feed on negative news. If they are allowed to cover all the facets of a specific security plan for a specific kind of target, they will by default go out of their way to let everyone (including the terrorists) know how they can be exploited. Plug the holes? Too late.</strong>
As opposed to having the holes not identified and not fixed, yet unpublicized? If it was publicized, at least the public and those in security have an understanding of what can go wrong, which is whole lot better than not knowing anything and not knowing that it even is wrong.
<strong>Once the terrorists find out about them, they're going to "plug" us. Think about the speed at which our government implements things like this. How quick will that fix you're talking about take? A week? Six weeks? Six months?</strong>
Which fix?
****pit redesign obviously will take a very very long time. New regulatory policies won't take much time at all. Air marshalls will take some time.
<strong>I never argued otherwise. I'm saying the news media --if allowed to report on whatever they choose -- will effectively undercut our own government by spreading information they have no business spreading during this particular crisis.</strong>
I can't see how it undercuts it in any way. A better system will be built if it's scrutinized in such a way.
<strong>Who? How will that independant body get the information it needs without being stone-walled?</strong>
The independent body would consist of security and terrorism experts, those with experience in the terrorism and in how law enforcement works. For stone-walling, the administration gives out an order that if they don't cooperate with this independent body, they'll be removed from said position.
<strong>I think you're WAY oversimplifying how easy it is to uncover -- and then STOP -- a plot by a dozen or so people spread across several countries - especially in a fundamentally open one like the US. They may not have been that highly trained or sohpisticated in certain respects, but they were well organized and they knew how to lay low for the most part. That's all they need to succeed.</strong>
After September 11th the FBI got a search warrant that its field agents had wanted for three weeks, and they immediately found the evidence that led to key conspirators in the attacks. According to Moussaoui?s indictment, the FBI found his notebook, listing a German phone number. That number traced back to Ramzi bin al Shibh. Bin al Shibh was the roommate of Mohammad Atta, the leader of the attacks. Bin al Shibh and Atta created a German Al Qaeda cell together. Bin al Shibh wired tens of thousands of dollars to Moussaoui and another hijacker, Marwan al-Shehhi, who flew into the World Trade Center?s South tower.
This was during a time where there were heightened worries about domestic terrorism, yet, the FBI somehow lost the information from French authorities saying that Moussaoui had ties to al Queda. All it takes if for one link in a chain to be broken and this plan would have been foiled.
<strong>More over-simplifications IMO. Increase airline security nation-wide, as a result of an ongoing investigation that doesn't even have enough evidence (yet) to bring criminal charges? I don't think so. No meaningful increases anyway. How do you justify millions of dollars worth of security expenses based on a loose collection of facts like the ones the FBI and CIA had to go on?</strong>
Why would this be more of a security expense then what they have now? They are paid to do this stuff. I'm saying that should do what they are paid to do, but more competently.
<strong>You think Congress would buy the "We have a very serious threat; we're working on rounding up the suspects in a legal manner, meantime, we need $400M for some new airport security equipment....." Not in America friend. We only spend the big bucks when we've already taken one on the chin.</strong>
I agree with you here. It's unfortunate. But again, this still doesn't absolve the law enforcement and security agencies from being incompetent.
<strong>Define "on the ball" - how do they get there? And bad politicians voted out - and replaced by whom?</strong>
Politicians that are voted out are replaced by politicians that hopefully care more. If that doesn't work, they can be voted out.
"On the ball"? That means that the law enforcement agencies know down to a gnat's *** the various things that can happen and who can execute them, that they can figure how something will happen from just a few clues.
<strong>Honestly I don't know what YOU think your'e accomplishing here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Simple. You misrepresented what I wrote and pretended that I did the same to you. I was just setting the record straight.
[quote]<strong>Ok lets get down to it here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's not. After this post I'm done with this. Argue all you want from here. I won't reply to you anymore.
[quote]<strong>A. I am not accusing the president of treason I'm just saying it's not impossible. It's one question of many. He did gain in popularity and in other ways because of this. If it hadn't happened he might have been the under dog because of the economy... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Given what you have suggested there's no question he'd be gulity of treason. Why are you pretending otherwise? Why should I indulge you in this pretense?
[quote]<strong>B. I think Watergate was almost as bad ( if the president had anything to do with this crisis ). While it didn't involve the deaths of thousands...</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>C. You would be pretty stupid to look the other way in a crisis like this but, how smart is it to try rig a national election. All I'm saying is it's possible not impossible...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nobody is looking the other way. But screwing around with these kinds of questions doesn?t address the real problems.
[quote]<strong>D. Don't you find it more than a little odd that someone could run an airliner into the pentigon without all manner of things targeting it and taking it out?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find it odd that I?d ask a perfectly reasonable question and you, despite your keen interest in asking questions, aren?t particular interested in this one. If some of the hijackers didn?t even know they were on a suicide flight how was Bush supposed to know?
Is that really the best you can do? Answering my questions with smart comments, insults, and incomplete quotes to pad your nonarguments?
About the pentigon what does it matter if they were suicide terrorists? The point is : The Pentigon is the military HQ for the U.S.
you're trying to tell me that the only defense it has is very thick walls? I would think once they figured out it was a high jacking and where they were going they would have had no other choice but to take it out. After all an airliner doesn't travel very fast.
But of course you really didn't answer the question because you don't have an answer for that one. They did know the planes were off course and of course on the plane that crashed that guy got to call home so it's not like they didn't know.
I know it's useless to try to ask these kinds of questions of someone with blinders on. You only want to look at the facts that fit your own tiny little worldview.
I'm getting annoyed at all these announcements of coming terrorism. At first I thought it was a coincidence, but now I'm thinking Bush is doing this in response to the criticism.
It's like he's saying - "criticize me, will ya? Well, I'll teach you people a lesson, I'm going to release every little bit of info we get from now on. So there."
<strong>I'm getting annoyed at all these announcements of coming terrorism. At first I thought it was a coincidence, but now I'm thinking Bush is doing this in response to the criticism.
It's like he's saying - "criticize me, will ya? Well, I'll teach you people a lesson, I'm going to release every little bit of info we get from now on. So there."</strong><hr></blockquote>
You think maybe, just maybe, there might be another explanation? How about: they were burned once and they are doing whatever they can do to try and not get burned again? I know. I know. Of all the possibilities there's just no way that's the reason.
Is that really the best you can do?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course not but it?s all you?re getting from me. As to the insults it?s a little late to be worrying about that, isn?t it? I?m sure you?ll be okay. After all, I wasn?t too traumatized by your complaints about my shallow and vacuous responses.
Hey, I thought you were out of here last time? That's pretty cheesy.
By the way you were the one who got ugly first I was just responding ( and at least I tried to answer your questions ).
Well if you're waiting for me to quit first so you can have the last word............good luck! I happen to believe in what I'm talking about.
That is ( before you take that beyond what I said ) the right to think of all the possibilities in this kind of situation. Even though they might be undesirable.
About that coincidental ( lol ) rise in terrorism reports. Geez, your blinders are tight.
<strong>You think maybe, just maybe, there might be another explanation? How about: they were burned once and they are doing whatever they can do to try and not get burned again? I know. I know. Of all the possibilities there's just no way that's the reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>I completely agree that's what they're doing. Isn't that basically what I said? I just wonder if basing your terrorism strategy on whatever it takes to maintain maximum political cover is really the best approach.
To me, it's part of how they've politicized this whole investigation issue. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/22/terror.warning/index.html"; target="_blank">Cheney did it again on Larry King last night</a>, calling those who want to try to prevent future attacks "despicable."
<strong>I completely agree that's what they're doing. Isn't that basically what I said? I just wonder if basing your terrorism strategy on whatever it takes to maintain maximum political cover is really the best approach.
To me, it's part of how they've politicized this whole investigation issue. Cheney did it again on Larry King last night, calling those who want to try to prevent future attacks "despicable." </strong><hr></blockquote>
I wasn't saying that they were responding to how they got burned politically. I'm suggesting that there is perhaps a heightened concern about the possibility of a terrorist act and they've lowered the threshold for issuing warnings.
And as to Cheney, everybody wants to prevent future attcks. Those he called dispicable were those who claim the the President had foreknowledge of September 11. Talk about politicizing the issue. Physician, heal thyself.
You're still making excuses. If they were guilty of foreknowlege they would say the same thing.
It seems to me they want to go back to the same paranioa we had during WWII and during the McCarthy years. That way no one will question what they do. Well, I say wake up and smell the coffee! This ain't the 50's. After Watergate many people don't take things at face value anymore.
<strong>Hey, I thought you were out of here last time? That's pretty cheesy.
By the way you were the one who got ugly first I was just responding...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean back when I was shutting you up? I feel bad about that one - the way I was destroying your freedoms. Bad spiff! Bad, bad, bad spiff!!!
Just wondering, are you really old enough to have remembered Watergate? Not asking your age - just wondering if you were talking about remembering something from a history book or if you actually remember the events.
You haven't presented anything to shut anybody up with.
I was going to stay away from the age thing since it's pretty obvious you are much younger and less experienced than myself.
I just turned 49 on May 10th.
I was just out of high school when Watergate happened. I even remember " Tricky Dick " resigning. I also remember where I was when Kennedy was assasinated ( 5th grade, they let school out that day and there was nothing on TV except that all week on all 4 channels ! ).
I was 16 when they landed on the moon.
I count myself lucky to have been born in the middle of the 20th century. I've seen so many things ( like the showdown with George Wallace in front of that high school or say the nightly reports about what was going on in Saigon ).
When I was in High School I listened to The Guess Who, The Doors ( Jim Morrison was still alive ), Deep Purple, Cream, Led Zepplin, oh and the Beatles ( but they broke up in my junior year ). Anything else you'd like to know?
By your demeanor and musical taste I'd put you somewhere in your 20's.
Comments
i think it's a risk they're all too ready to take... and i don't see how investing in either pipeline could hurt the saudis.
prolly just me,
cuss
On an individual basis, I'm sure. But [[not]] from a regulatory, organizational and structural standpoint. I don't think so. As long as the agencies view themselves as rival fiefdoms, as opposed friendly fiefdoms, there are going to be some big holes in the system.<hr></blockquote>
Granted.
Now, how do you get rid of the rivalry? Think about where that rivalry stems from. You're effectively asking people in the FBI and CIA to elevate themselves above the human condition (ambition, greed, jealousy, mind games, etc.). Even though we don't look at it as such, those people work in a business and are subject to the same kinds of human pitfalls and weaknesses rival businesses suffer from. Albeit for different reasons and with a wholly different kind of service/product - and a wholly different set of results when something goes awry.
But the question I pose still stands. How do you address all those things I mentioned? Complete overhaul of the CIA and FBI. Fine. In the end (two, three years from now??) maybe we have a much more cooperative and useful set of intelligence agencies - what happens to us in the meantime? Does reforming their "business practices" (how information flows, adjusting the CoC, adjusting legal policies, etc.) take precedent over doing what they're doing now - i.e. trying to deal with the information they have as best they can right NOW?
[quote]It doesn't matter if there are new measures. They can get rid of all the measures and replace it with a few for all I care. The only ruler they should be using is whether the measures work or not. <hr></blockquote>
The obvious retort to which is, how do you determine if a new security measure is going to "work" without trying it? Which goes back to my whole point of, they don't want to keep throwing solutions out there without doing some serious risk analysis and intelligence work first. It's not like they can say, "OK, we're going to use a combinatin of X dozen armed MPs, two Acme Bomb Sniffers and new metal detectors" without discerning whether the money spent on all those things would do any good.
[quote]The only airline measures that make any sense are reinforced cockpit and air marshalls....<hr></blockquote>
I disagree. I think the current airport situation is a failure only in the sense that they STILL don't require passengers to match up with all luggage, boxes and the like. That is such a no-brainer that they don't need to analyze it. So, why haven't they done it? I'll tell you why - because it would royally piss off many of the people in airports you have thus far perceived to be "patient." Because as soon as you cross-check every bag, box and suitcase with a person onboard the aircraft, you by definition will have fewer flights, higher airfares and of course more waiting. Yet another example of steps most Americans are NOT willing to take.
[quote]No. I don't think so. The more you share your plans, the more holes you can plug. The media as envisioned by the Constitution protects the people from a corrupt government. It's a bad day when that becomes the opposite. Though I would agree that the profession has been compromised by the need to make money.<hr></blockquote>
Sorry, but the fact is journalists today feed on negative news. If they are allowed to cover all the facets of a specific security plan for a specific kind of target, they will by default go out of their way to let everyone (including the terrorists) know how they can be exploited. Plug the holes? Too late. Once the terrorists find out about them, they're going to "plug" us. Think about the speed at which our government implements things like this. How quick will that fix you're talking about take? A week? Six weeks? Six months?
The answer is, long enough for the terrorists to use the information they've been given as a weapon - every time. Screw the news media. If they want to report on the kinds of things we've been hearing lately fine. They can pretend they're a part of the checks and balances. But when it comes to details about security plans, they should be out of the loop - at leas until details of said plans become public knowledge via other means.
[quote]Also, there is nothing the media can do that alters the responsibilities of government officials. They still have the responsibility of gathering, analyzing and disseminating terrorism information no matter how much scrutiny they fall under.<hr></blockquote>
I never argued otherwise. I'm saying the news media --if allowed to report on whatever they choose -- will effectively undercut our own government by spreading information they have no business spreading during this particular crisis.
[quote]I'm for open government. Open and public Sept 11 investigation done by independents.<hr></blockquote>
Who? How will that independant body get the information it needs without being stone-walled?
[quote]90% of the classified information in the government doesn't need to be classified.<hr></blockquote> That's probably an exaggerated number, but I would agree if they can speed up their response times by de-classifying some of the data (and thus cutting out some of the bureaucrats), they should.
[quote]Yes, they have a difficult job. It's also their job. If they can't stop a well funded group of people from committing a massive act terror, then they are broken. The Sept 11 terrorists weren't even that professional to begin with. It's a given that it'll be impossible to stop a loner from doing something, but when it involves money and more than 1 or 2 people, the amount of info available should be enough.<hr></blockquote>
I think you're WAY oversimplifying how easy it is to uncover -- and then STOP -- a plot by a dozen or so people spread across several countries - especially in a fundamentally open one like the US. They may not have been that highly trained or sohpisticated in certain respects, but they were well organized and they knew how to lay low for the most part. That's all they need to succeed.
[quote]The gov't doesn't have to do anything illegal. They just need to break one link in a chain of events. That could have kept track of said flight students, increasing airline security, performing deeper background checks, etc....<hr></blockquote>
More over-simplifications IMO. Increase airline security nation-wide, as a result of an ongoing investigation that doesn't even have enough evidence (yet) to bring criminal charges? I don't think so. No meaningful increases anyway. How do you justify millions of dollars worth of security expenses based on a loose collection of facts like the ones the FBI and CIA had to go on? You think Congress would buy the "We have a very serious threat; we're working on rounding up the suspects in a legal manner, meantime, we need $400M for some new airport security equipment....." Not in America friend. We only spend the big bucks when we've already taken one on the chin. That applies to security, military spending, healthcare, and anything else. Our government is by definition reactive in the way they allocated funds - there's no way in hell they'd shell out big money on a "perceived" threat. Not until 9/11 they wouldn't.
[quote]The point of my argument is that you can have both ways. It requires the law enforcement and security agencies to be on the ball. The media is irrelevant to their jobs. Politicians are however a problem since they control the money and the policy. But isn't that up to us? They can be voted out.<hr></blockquote>
Define "on the ball" - how do they get there? And bad politicians voted out - and replaced by whom?
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
I've got my facts straight just like you did when you said I was accusing the president of treason. I was just asking a question. " Did he turn his head " ? is very different than " he turned his head and let this happen ". Which for clarity's sake I will state that.......I didn't say.
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>Spacey_Spiff
I've got my facts straight just like you did when you said I was accusing the president of treason. I was just asking a question. " Did he turn his head " ? is very different than " he turned his head and let this happen ". Which for clarity's sake I will state that.......I didn't say.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
For clarity?s sake your full question was, ?Did he turn his head and look the other way??
I replied, ?No he didn't. If he did, then he would be guilty of the worst treason imaginable and I for one would be calling for his head.?
You then responded by not by saying I had misunderstood you. Instead you wrote, ?How can you be sure??
Now you are claiming that I seem to think Watergate was a small thing. What I actually wrote was, ?Watergate pales in comparison to what you are suggesting. The two are in no way comparable - and Watergate was pretty bad.?
I don't know what you think you are accomplishing here. You're not going to bulldoze this one past me.
Ok lets get down to it here.
A. I am not accusing the president of treason I'm just saying it's not impossible. It's one question of many. He did gain in popularity and in other ways because of this. If it hadn't happened he might have been the under dog because of the economy. Any good attorney would ask these questions if it was just someone off the street.
B. I think Watergate was almost as bad ( if the president had anything to do with this crisis ). While it didn't involve the deaths of thousands it affected the lives of millions.
C. You would be pretty stupid to look the other way in a crisis like this but, how smart is it to try rig a national election. All I'm saying is it's possible not impossible.
D. Don't you find it more than a little odd that someone could run an airliner into the pentigon without all manner of things targeting it and taking it out?
I'll admit I don't like Bush and didn't vote for him ( not that there was much of a choice last time ). And no I don't see a conspiracy under every bush ( no pun intended ) but, since Watergate ( and my US history teacher way back in high school who taught me a lot about the truth of how history is written ) I don't take anything at face value.
If you dig deep enough you will probably find some dirt. Unfortunately it tends to be human nature.
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
But the question I pose still stands. How do you address all those things I mentioned? Complete overhaul of the CIA and FBI. Fine. In the end (two, three years from now??) maybe we have a much more cooperative and useful set of intelligence agencies - what happens to us in the meantime?</strong>
My idea would be to centralize the information in computerized databases and to flatten the command structure of the CIA and FBI. A centralized information database would be shared between the FBI and the CIA. By command structure, I mean the local offices would have more autonomy in their work and are not as beholding to their headquarters. The field agents and those above them would have more power to investigate without the approval of headquarters. The reorganization would occur one local office at a time.
What happens to us in the meantime? The transition has to be slow, but it needs to be done. Look at what's happening to us right now, a year after the warnings. We're still receiving vague warnings of terrorism. So it looks like the status quo, not to mention bombing Afganistan, hasn't secured our safety nor has does the FBI and CIA seem more effective.
<strong>The only airline measures that make any sense are reinforced ****pit and air marshalls....
I disagree. I think the current airport situation is a failure only in the sense that they STILL don't require passengers to match up with all luggage, boxes and the like. That is such a no-brainer that they don't need to analyze it. So, why haven't they done it?</strong>
How does this stop hijackings? How does it stop suicide bombings? I'm not even sure what you mean by matching.
<strong>I'll tell you why - because it would royally piss off many of the people in airports you have thus far perceived to be "patient." Because as soon as you cross-check every bag, box and suitcase with a person onboard the aircraft, you by definition will have fewer flights, higher airfares and of course more waiting. Yet another example of steps most Americans are NOT willing to take.</strong>
Use a computer, scanner, and ID tags on lugguge. It will then be invisible. If a person's luggage gets on board, and you don't, then they can figure out what has happened.
I think the reason the DOT doesn't want to institute good security measures is because of money and because they lack some spine.
<strong>Sorry, but the fact is journalists today feed on negative news. If they are allowed to cover all the facets of a specific security plan for a specific kind of target, they will by default go out of their way to let everyone (including the terrorists) know how they can be exploited. Plug the holes? Too late.</strong>
As opposed to having the holes not identified and not fixed, yet unpublicized? If it was publicized, at least the public and those in security have an understanding of what can go wrong, which is whole lot better than not knowing anything and not knowing that it even is wrong.
<strong>Once the terrorists find out about them, they're going to "plug" us. Think about the speed at which our government implements things like this. How quick will that fix you're talking about take? A week? Six weeks? Six months?</strong>
Which fix?
****pit redesign obviously will take a very very long time. New regulatory policies won't take much time at all. Air marshalls will take some time.
<strong>I never argued otherwise. I'm saying the news media --if allowed to report on whatever they choose -- will effectively undercut our own government by spreading information they have no business spreading during this particular crisis.</strong>
I can't see how it undercuts it in any way. A better system will be built if it's scrutinized in such a way.
<strong>Who? How will that independant body get the information it needs without being stone-walled?</strong>
The independent body would consist of security and terrorism experts, those with experience in the terrorism and in how law enforcement works. For stone-walling, the administration gives out an order that if they don't cooperate with this independent body, they'll be removed from said position.
<strong>I think you're WAY oversimplifying how easy it is to uncover -- and then STOP -- a plot by a dozen or so people spread across several countries - especially in a fundamentally open one like the US. They may not have been that highly trained or sohpisticated in certain respects, but they were well organized and they knew how to lay low for the most part. That's all they need to succeed.</strong>
All they need to do is to break one link in a chain of events. If the MPLS FBI got a hold of Moussaoui's property they could have <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/08/60II/main508362.shtml"; target="_blank">stopped it</a>:
After September 11th the FBI got a search warrant that its field agents had wanted for three weeks, and they immediately found the evidence that led to key conspirators in the attacks. According to Moussaoui?s indictment, the FBI found his notebook, listing a German phone number. That number traced back to Ramzi bin al Shibh. Bin al Shibh was the roommate of Mohammad Atta, the leader of the attacks. Bin al Shibh and Atta created a German Al Qaeda cell together. Bin al Shibh wired tens of thousands of dollars to Moussaoui and another hijacker, Marwan al-Shehhi, who flew into the World Trade Center?s South tower.
This was during a time where there were heightened worries about domestic terrorism, yet, the FBI somehow lost the information from French authorities saying that Moussaoui had ties to al Queda. All it takes if for one link in a chain to be broken and this plan would have been foiled.
<strong>More over-simplifications IMO. Increase airline security nation-wide, as a result of an ongoing investigation that doesn't even have enough evidence (yet) to bring criminal charges? I don't think so. No meaningful increases anyway. How do you justify millions of dollars worth of security expenses based on a loose collection of facts like the ones the FBI and CIA had to go on?</strong>
Why would this be more of a security expense then what they have now? They are paid to do this stuff. I'm saying that should do what they are paid to do, but more competently.
<strong>You think Congress would buy the "We have a very serious threat; we're working on rounding up the suspects in a legal manner, meantime, we need $400M for some new airport security equipment....." Not in America friend. We only spend the big bucks when we've already taken one on the chin.</strong>
I agree with you here. It's unfortunate. But again, this still doesn't absolve the law enforcement and security agencies from being incompetent.
<strong>Define "on the ball" - how do they get there? And bad politicians voted out - and replaced by whom?</strong>
Politicians that are voted out are replaced by politicians that hopefully care more. If that doesn't work, they can be voted out.
"On the ball"? That means that the law enforcement agencies know down to a gnat's *** the various things that can happen and who can execute them, that they can figure how something will happen from just a few clues.
<strong>Honestly I don't know what YOU think your'e accomplishing here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Simple. You misrepresented what I wrote and pretended that I did the same to you. I was just setting the record straight.
[quote]<strong>Ok lets get down to it here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's not. After this post I'm done with this. Argue all you want from here. I won't reply to you anymore.
[quote]<strong>A. I am not accusing the president of treason I'm just saying it's not impossible. It's one question of many. He did gain in popularity and in other ways because of this. If it hadn't happened he might have been the under dog because of the economy... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Given what you have suggested there's no question he'd be gulity of treason. Why are you pretending otherwise? Why should I indulge you in this pretense?
[quote]<strong>B. I think Watergate was almost as bad ( if the president had anything to do with this crisis ). While it didn't involve the deaths of thousands...</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>C. You would be pretty stupid to look the other way in a crisis like this but, how smart is it to try rig a national election. All I'm saying is it's possible not impossible...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nobody is looking the other way. But screwing around with these kinds of questions doesn?t address the real problems.
[quote]<strong>D. Don't you find it more than a little odd that someone could run an airliner into the pentigon without all manner of things targeting it and taking it out?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find it odd that I?d ask a perfectly reasonable question and you, despite your keen interest in asking questions, aren?t particular interested in this one. If some of the hijackers didn?t even know they were on a suicide flight how was Bush supposed to know?
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
Is that really the best you can do? Answering my questions with smart comments, insults, and incomplete quotes to pad your nonarguments?
About the pentigon what does it matter if they were suicide terrorists? The point is : The Pentigon is the military HQ for the U.S.
you're trying to tell me that the only defense it has is very thick walls? I would think once they figured out it was a high jacking and where they were going they would have had no other choice but to take it out. After all an airliner doesn't travel very fast.
But of course you really didn't answer the question because you don't have an answer for that one. They did know the planes were off course and of course on the plane that crashed that guy got to call home so it's not like they didn't know.
I know it's useless to try to ask these kinds of questions of someone with blinders on. You only want to look at the facts that fit your own tiny little worldview.
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
It's like he's saying - "criticize me, will ya? Well, I'll teach you people a lesson, I'm going to release every little bit of info we get from now on. So there."
<strong>I'm getting annoyed at all these announcements of coming terrorism. At first I thought it was a coincidence, but now I'm thinking Bush is doing this in response to the criticism.
It's like he's saying - "criticize me, will ya? Well, I'll teach you people a lesson, I'm going to release every little bit of info we get from now on. So there."</strong><hr></blockquote>
You think maybe, just maybe, there might be another explanation? How about: they were burned once and they are doing whatever they can do to try and not get burned again? I know. I know. Of all the possibilities there's just no way that's the reason.
<strong>
Is that really the best you can do?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course not but it?s all you?re getting from me. As to the insults it?s a little late to be worrying about that, isn?t it? I?m sure you?ll be okay. After all, I wasn?t too traumatized by your complaints about my shallow and vacuous responses.
By the way you were the one who got ugly first I was just responding ( and at least I tried to answer your questions ).
Well if you're waiting for me to quit first so you can have the last word............good luck! I happen to believe in what I'm talking about.
That is ( before you take that beyond what I said ) the right to think of all the possibilities in this kind of situation. Even though they might be undesirable.
About that coincidental ( lol ) rise in terrorism reports. Geez, your blinders are tight.
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>You think maybe, just maybe, there might be another explanation? How about: they were burned once and they are doing whatever they can do to try and not get burned again? I know. I know. Of all the possibilities there's just no way that's the reason.</strong><hr></blockquote>I completely agree that's what they're doing. Isn't that basically what I said? I just wonder if basing your terrorism strategy on whatever it takes to maintain maximum political cover is really the best approach.
To me, it's part of how they've politicized this whole investigation issue. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/22/terror.warning/index.html"; target="_blank">Cheney did it again on Larry King last night</a>, calling those who want to try to prevent future attacks "despicable."
<strong>I completely agree that's what they're doing. Isn't that basically what I said? I just wonder if basing your terrorism strategy on whatever it takes to maintain maximum political cover is really the best approach.
To me, it's part of how they've politicized this whole investigation issue. Cheney did it again on Larry King last night, calling those who want to try to prevent future attacks "despicable." </strong><hr></blockquote>
I wasn't saying that they were responding to how they got burned politically. I'm suggesting that there is perhaps a heightened concern about the possibility of a terrorist act and they've lowered the threshold for issuing warnings.
And as to Cheney, everybody wants to prevent future attcks. Those he called dispicable were those who claim the the President had foreknowledge of September 11. Talk about politicizing the issue. Physician, heal thyself.
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
This is what they refer to as "damage control ".
You're still making excuses. If they were guilty of foreknowlege they would say the same thing.
It seems to me they want to go back to the same paranioa we had during WWII and during the McCarthy years. That way no one will question what they do. Well, I say wake up and smell the coffee! This ain't the 50's. After Watergate many people don't take things at face value anymore.
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>Hey, I thought you were out of here last time? That's pretty cheesy.
By the way you were the one who got ugly first I was just responding...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean back when I was shutting you up? I feel bad about that one - the way I was destroying your freedoms. Bad spiff! Bad, bad, bad spiff!!!
Just wondering, are you really old enough to have remembered Watergate? Not asking your age - just wondering if you were talking about remembering something from a history book or if you actually remember the events.
You haven't presented anything to shut anybody up with.
I was going to stay away from the age thing since it's pretty obvious you are much younger and less experienced than myself.
I just turned 49 on May 10th.
I was just out of high school when Watergate happened. I even remember " Tricky Dick " resigning. I also remember where I was when Kennedy was assasinated ( 5th grade, they let school out that day and there was nothing on TV except that all week on all 4 channels ! ).
I was 16 when they landed on the moon.
I count myself lucky to have been born in the middle of the 20th century. I've seen so many things ( like the showdown with George Wallace in front of that high school or say the nightly reports about what was going on in Saigon ).
When I was in High School I listened to The Guess Who, The Doors ( Jim Morrison was still alive ), Deep Purple, Cream, Led Zepplin, oh and the Beatles ( but they broke up in my junior year ). Anything else you'd like to know?
By your demeanor and musical taste I'd put you somewhere in your 20's.
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>... I was going to stay away from the age thing since it's pretty obvious you are much younger and less experienced than myself.
I just turned 49 on May 10th.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you.