Mishandling Terrorism

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by wonderwench, Jan 24, 2004.

  1. wonderwench
    Online

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    An excellent commentary on how Terrorism was enabled by the Clinton policy of treating it as a criminal offense - instead of an act of war. One interesting bit is the tie-in of the unintended consequences of post-Watergate laws which prevented the FBI from sharing information with the CIA. One of the decent reforms the Bushies have introduced is to allow interagency cooperation. About time.


    In his State of the Union speech, President George W. Bush identified the point at which America's response to terrorism went so badly awry: the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Bush also explained what went wrong: That attack was treated entirely as a law-enforcement issue; "some of the guilty were indicted, tried, convicted, and sent to prison." Following the speech, one National Public Radio commentator gasped that Bush seemed to be blaming former President Bill Clinton.

    That is, indeed, where blame lies. After every terrorist attack that occurred on his watch, Clinton would condemn the perpetrators and vow to bring them to justice. Yet there was a Catch-22: by treating terrorism as a law-enforcement issue, Clinton practically guaranteed that it would be understood as a law-enforcement issue — and the critical question of state sponsorship would receive scant attention. In many respects, the U.S. legal system was, and still is, ill-suited to dealing with major terrorist attacks.

    A very significant flaw crept into that system after Watergate, with serious consequences in the 1990s, when several major terrorist assaults against the United States were followed by stunningly early arrests. Post-Watergate reforms prohibited the FBI from sharing the results of a criminal investigation with the CIA or any other national-security agency. Thus, once the FBI arrested even one suspect in the 1993 Trade Center bombing, that arrest cut off the flow of information to other agencies. Six days after the bombing, Mohammed Salameh, a 26-year-old Palestinian, was detained for the remarkably foolish act of returning to a Ryder rental agency for his deposit on the van that carried the bomb.

    From then on, the only purpose to which the FBI's investigation could be put was the prosecution of Salameh. And as long as even one individual remained a fugitive — Abdul Rahman Yasin, who came to New York from Baghdad before the bombing and returned there afterwards, is still at large — that information could not be passed on to other government agencies.

    The State Department's counterterrorism office, for example, is charged with determining whether any given act of terrorism is state-sponsored. But since it didn't have the results of the 1993 bombing investigation, how could it possibly make any such determination?

    Individuals in the U.S. bureaucracies could have obtained copies of the voluminous documentary evidence that was put into the public record through the trials, just as any private citizen can: by going to the courthouse. But bureaucracies are dominated by routine, and that did not happen, as I learned after providing Ramzi Yousef's fingerprints (evidence in the first Trade Center bombing trial) to an individual at the CIA's counterterrorism center, when the FBI refused to share the prints with him.

    Moreover, even as this information was not provided to agencies of the U.S. government, by law it had to be provided to the terrorist defendants and their lawyers, including Ramzi Yousef, the attack's mastermind. In the worst case, Yousef may have managed to pass back to his handlers some of that information, allowing them to sharpen the methods by which they evaded U.S. detection in subsequent assaults.

    Trials are narrowly focused. A prosecutor aims to secure convictions and maximal sentences for the defendants in the courtroom; pursuing the question of possible state sponsorship is rarely relevant to that task. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the accused a speedy trial. Yet the investigation into a major terrorist attack is a difficult, time-consuming task: After 9/11, it took authorities six months to learn that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (who is supposedly Yousef's uncle) was the mastermind of those dreadful assaults. And that information came from the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah — information that would been unavailable if, following his capture, Abu Zubaydah had been arrested and read his Miranda rights, as regularly happened in the Clinton years.

    Following the Trade Center bombing, Salameh's lawyer wanted the speediest trial possible, lest the government discover yet more evidence against his client. The legal system, in its normal operations, provides for just that — it's a defendant's right. Thus the lead prosecutor, Gil Childers, has explained that even as the trial began — just seven months after the bombing — he was still sorting through the evidence against each defendant. He did not have time even to think about the question of state sponsorship.

    Indeed, it is hard to conceive of a more confused and counterproductive system for dealing with terrorism. It created an extraordinarily easy way for a terrorist state to get away with the murder of Americans: just leave behind a few violent but witless dupes, to be arrested and stand trial (as I cautioned long ago, in an article explaining Iraq's role in the Trade Center bombing). Post 9/11 counterterrorism legislation did reverse the prohibition on the FBI's sharing of information, but the other problems remain.

    Democrats, like Sen. Ted Kennedy, allege that Bush went to war in Iraq for "political reasons." But war is not popular with Americans; they prefer peace, and it is an extraordinarily difficult decision to put at risk the lives of U.S. soldiers. Bush's father made that decision as he went to war in 1991, against the counsel of many, including most Democrats, who advised letting sanctions force Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

    The younger Bush made a similar decision in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. From time to time, Bush defends that decision, affirming that his most solemn obligation is to protect the security of the American people. For the public really to understand that, however, the administration probably needs to explain at greater length just how poorly the Democrats have dealt with national-security affairs, and in particular, how thoroughly Clinton mishandled the terrorist attacks that preceded

    9/11.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mylroie200401230838.asp
     
  2. bamthin
    Online

    bamthin Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I love how the right wing-nuts conveniently forget Lebanon. Even after Bin Laden referenced it as an example of how weak the United States is.

    Dubya had his chances at Bin Laden before 9/11 too and he blew it...three times.

    Missed Opportunity
    Officials: Bush Administration Was Slow to Approve Drones to Kill Bin Laden

    By Ted Bridis and John Solomon
    The Associated Press

    — When President Bush took office in January 2001, the White House was told that Predator drones had recently spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times and officials were urged to arm the unmanned planes with missiles to kill the al Qaeda leader.

    But the administration failed to get drones back into the Afghan skies until after the Sept. 11 attacks later that year, current and former U.S. officials say.

    Top administration officials discussed the mission to kill bin Laden as late as one week before the suicide attacks on New York and Washington, but they had not yet resolved a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators and whether the missiles would be sufficiently lethal, officials told The Associated Press.

    In the month before that meeting, the Pentagon and CIA successfully tested an armed Predator on at least three occasions — including once when it destroyed a mockup home resembling an Afghan structure bin Laden supposedly used, the officials said.



    LINK

    -Bam
     
  3. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Turning down an offer to have a man turned over alive is a far cry from not working quickly enough to kill someone. Weak argument, as usual.
     
  4. wonderwench
    Online

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    The 1993 WTC bombing was the seminal event which caused the escalation towards 9/11. Clinton blew it big time with his legalistic approach.
     
  5. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    Gee, I never noticed that WW was a right wing nut- she seems to be pretty open minded on all issues to me. Secondly, with all the hootin & hollerin going on now about reasons for war, etc. I doubt the liberals in this country would have agreed with Bush summarily executing OBL with a drone!
     
  6. wonderwench
    Online

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm not a wing nut.

    I am a Whining Rotter. I have the official test score to prove it.

    Just ask Big D!
     
  7. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    I just love it how some are constantly speaking out against death of any sort, as ammunition against Bush. Then in the next breath they'll state he didn't do enough to kill someone, as ammunition against Bush.

    Let's turn this around for a second. Bam, was war declared prior to 9/11? Are you saying you support murder?
     
  8. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    More mishandling,

    From his base in the Sudan in 1993, bin Laden saw the American intervention to save starving Somalis as a Crusader occupation. Al Qaeda operatives returned to their former battleground against the Soviets in Afghanistan to retrieve Milan and Stinger missiles, and bin Laden hired a Sudan Airways cargo plane for a Somali arms lift. His aides, including top lieutenant Mohammed Atef, traveled to Somalia to provide training. It was al Qaeda’s operational advice to wait until an American helicopter had passed overhead and shoot rocket-propelled grenades at its tail rotor, the tactic that proved so successful for Aideed’s forces.

    The hasty surrender recalled the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, reinforcing the dangerously inflated self-image of the Islamists. They had defeated one superpower from the Hindu Kush mountains, and had dealt a rattling blow to another from the slums of Mogadishu. If eighteen dead could shake America, well then, what could be accomplished by killing thousands?

    “It cleared from Muslim minds the myth of superpowers,” bin Laden said in his interview with ABC News journalist John Miller in May 1998.



    Excerpt from Legacy: Paying the price for the Clinton Years, by Rich Lowry
     
  9. wonderwench
    Online

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    That is an excellent book, Z. I bought pre-ordered it before it was released. It is a fascinating, albeit, depressing read.
     
  10. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    Yes, it's quite amazing how little the man accomplished in 8 years, and how much long-term damage his indecisiveness has caused.
     

Share This Page