WASHINGTON (AP) - - Terrorists could try to strike again soon in the United States, FBI Director Robert Mueller says, while offering little assurance the agency can thwart the next attack. CIA Director George Tenet says the current situation is comparable to the summer before Sept. 11. “I have a hard time telling the country that you should be comfortable, that we’ve covered all the bases, in the wake of what we saw they were able to accomplish on Sept. 11,” Mueller told the House and Senate Intelligence committees Thursday.
As far as I can tell, the CIA and/or the FBI might as well announce that someone, somewhere, is likely to win a lottery this week. Seems far more likely to be an accurate prediction. If there is an inordinately high probability of a terrorist attack, what the hell does that mean to me? What am I supposed to do?
I agree, but the intel guys are in a no-win situation in a way. If they issue alerts every time they suspect something might happen, we get annoyed and accuse them of crying wolf. But if they don’t say anything and something actually does happen, we’d be howling for blood and screaming “Why didn’t you warn us?”.
Congress controls the CIA’s budget. If the CIA succeeds in frightening the congress-critters, it ensures the continued extortion of the people’s money in order to expand their operations.
This may be a good or bad thing, depending on what you think of the CIA.
Or, of course, Congress could tell the CIA “We gave you $2 billion last year (or whatever the amount was) and you couldn’t protect us. We can be not protected much cheaper than that.”
I suspect Ferrous is on-target; it’s an ass-covering measure. “Well, we said someone would get blown up somewhere—you can’t say we’re not doing our jobs and warning you people!”
If I were the cynical sort, I’d say it’s so they can keep the level of fear among the American public raised so that people who would otherwise object to giving up civil liberties or making war on Iraq will be more willing to go along with it as part of the “War on Terror.” With the added bonus of being allowed by a public terrorized by its own government with pronouncements of imminent threat to characterize those who object to the aforementioned loss of civil liberties or war-making to be unsupportive of the “War on Terror” and by extension less “patriotic” or more “un-American” than those who go along out of fear.
This is absolutely a “CYA” tactic. Mr. Echo and I were discussing this very morning the fact that THEY CAN’T PROTECT US FROM TERRORISM. They can thwart SOME attacks and they can arrest SOME bad guys, but we will live in anticipation of another hit FOREVER. We are now living the way much of the rest of the world lives – in fear of terrorism.
If I were the cynical sort, I’d have to agree with Otto. If I were.
Well, it does make it clear that the past year’s hoopla about the war on terror, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the wholesale violation of human rights and civil liberties hasn’t done JACK SHIT to decrease the threat of terrorist attacks. Perhaps the the great powers can use that knowledge to choose their battles more effectively ?
My impression is a “CYA” tactic as well, however my disgust is more towards everyone and their mother, Monday morning quaterbacking the CIA & FBI.
How the hell were they suppossed to predict 9/11?
Seriously, what preventive steps should have been taken?
People put too much faith in these organizations. There is no possible way to prevent a determined lunatic from killing people. Its a shitty shiity fact, that reflects this new age we live in.
well. for one thing, if they’d gotten reasonable intel (and it seemed that they had), that hijacked planes could be used as an explosive device, then they could have notified air traffic controllers to sound an alert should they note:
a plane suddenly veering substantially off course and
not responding (or responding correctly) to their quearies.
IIRC, the planes weren’t hijacked/taken over and flown into the buildings w/in a few minutes, they were taken over, and had to fly for some time to get to where they needed to go.
The air traffic controllers would know pretty damn quickly something was wrong. But there wasn’t a plan in place. There is now. (recalling planes who accidentally flew over restricted airspace suddenly finding themselves escorted).
This would have simply been a set of instructions to the first line of people likely to know/notice something was amiss.
More than that, it’s not like these guys called a news conference to announce this or anything. They were testifying to Congress and gave, to the best of their ability, a truthful answer to a question.
Specifically, Senator Graham asked, “So, what – if you could summarize, what do you think should be the level of assurance that the people of the United States would have that we would be successful in defending them against this probability that Saddam Hussein would be much less constrained in adopting terrorist activities?”
Mueller’s full answer was:
(quoted from FNS transcription – blame any errors on them)
Ok great, now we’re on the look out for planes veering off course. Obviously they will not use the same method of attack next time, so now what do we look for?
There are literally thousands of different ways to attack us, what steps should the govt take to prepare the country for every eventuality?
I’m surprised that people don’t understand theres not too much they can do to protect us. All they seem to do is complain and fan the fires of paranoia.
Ok great, now we’re on the look out for planes veering off course. Obviously they will not use the same method of attack next time, so now what do we look for?
There are literally thousands of different ways to attack us, what steps should the govt take to prepare the country for every eventuality?
I’m surprised that people don’t understand theres not too much they can do to protect us. All they seem to do is complain and fan the fires of paranoia.
World E I understand ‘there’s tons of ways people can be evil’.
you asked ‘what specifically could they have done pre 9/11’.
I gave a specific answer, which, admittedly doesn’t guarentee that bad people can’t do bad things, but, would specifically have been the thing to do to prevent the foreseable ‘bad people hijack plane so they can use it to crash into a building’.
Killing thousands of people in (basically) one attack is a very difficult thing to do unless you happen to command the USAF (or something really similar) and already have the troops and armaments in place near where you wish to strike. The US’s neighbors (for the most part) are pretty friendly, and the US’s main enemies (for the most part, or those who seem ready/willing able to actively attack) aren’t physically near, nor do they command a large enough military force (planes, ships, troops etc.) to get near enough to strike.
yes, there’s doomsday scenarios w/mobile nuceular weapons etc, but, as one side kept on saying “just because you can’t forestall every method doesn’t mean that you fail to protect yourself against foreseeable methods”, as in you don’t leave the bank open just 'cause it’s not possible to prevent all break ins.
( and yes, by the way, one reason we have air traffic controllers is to make sure that planes aren’t veering off course - that’s what they do, their ‘raison d’etre’ if you will)
"The Central Intelligence Agency issued an intelligence report listing Bali among possible targets of a pending terrorist attack just two weeks before the weekend’s devastating Kuta bomb blast, the Washington Post is reporting.
The warning was based on intercepted communications picked up in late September, which signalled a strike against “a Western tourist site”. “Bali was mentioned in the US intelligence report,” the paper says."
