Liquid Bomb Threat: New York Times; August12
Letter to the Editor:
You’re right on target; however, now is the time to question what is being done by our own country to defeat terrorism and perhaps to examine why the English have been so much more successful in penetrating terrorist organizations.
What we have seen up close over the last week or two should serve to
shine a spotlight on the many differences that exist between security in Britain and security in the US.
In England, the British operatives were able to penetrate the terrorists’ shield and gain parity with other members of the group. They had this group under surveillance for more than a year before they decided to move in when some of the organization’s leaders started moving into the mountainous country of eastern Pakistan.
The Security Services understood what the group’s intentions were, who its members were and an approximate schedule for their proposed terrorist bombing of airliners headed to the US.
How different from what our security and protection agencies have accomplished here despite the fact that they have upturned the Constitution to eavesdrop on Americans.
In the long build-up to the first attacks in 93 on the WTC, the US had no operatives that had penetrated the Islamic groups that proliferated in the Atlantic Avenue and Boerum Hill sections of Brooklyn or other Arabic strongholds in New Jersey. This was blamed on the Agency’s decision to go to electronic eavesdropping as opposed to boots on the ground.
In effect, the government had no clue as to what the terrorists were up to despite numerous clues and activities taking place in other parts of the world. We were purposely naïve or so inbred, that the culture could not accept the terrorists to not play by the book?
From what we now know, the plan to kill the head of the Jewish Defense League had its genesis on Atlantic Avenue; eventually, the place suspected of being where it was planned was literally blown off the map. Still, the American government had no clue of where the growing belligerence of Islamic fundamentalists was going.
John O’Neill was the only operative in the FBI’s leadership to point to bin Laden for his connections to the blowing up of the Cole; O’Neill had conducted the investigations and had a laundry list of conspirators that begged to be followed up; but he was denied the opportunity to see justice done for none other than his clash with the prevailing culture.
As a result, the first plot to bomb the WTC was hatched in restaurants and mosques along Atlantic Avenue and in other locations in Brooklyn. After the attack, all roads led to a residence in Brooklyn where four men were arrested with two eventually let go who would become key players in the second attack on the WTC.
Evidence from computers and files were seized by the FBI. However, after subsequent investigations as a result of the second attack on the WTC, testimony was given that the evidence was never checked because no one spoke the dialects of the terrorists.
The FBI, although they had expanded their department, did not trust those who were not members of the agency to interpret the files of the would-be terrorists. According to later testimony, those files from the 93 attack contained detailed records of the WTC and floor plans and apparently much more information that has still not come to light.
Why did we seem to know so little about the terrorists intended moves? Why didn’t we have plants or operatives who had burrowed into the many Arabic organizations where these terrorists had roots? Why do we seem to know so little about what is happening in these areas?
After what happened in 95 re the attempted hijacking of airliners in Asia, why were we not on our guard? Why did we not think it was unusual for many Arabic men to be taking flying lessons in the US? And why do we allow flite simulators to be sold without proof that the buyer is a pilot or training to become a pilot? Why didn’t we pay attention to the many clues and tips we received from overseas—from the Italian government and sources as diverse as Mossad? Some CIA sources I have suggested that the FBI was too busy assigning its top agents toth Bill Clinton’s investigation. Considering the animus that existed between Louis Freeh and Bill Clinton, that hypothesis bears further investigation.
Why didn’t we take the CIA’s information seriously?
These and other questions persist today!
What we do know that the FBI still maintains the same culture it had before it became part of the new bureaucracy and is now the FBII with another layer of bureaucracy layered on top of it. John O’Neill’s, a senior FBI official, was derided for his views which turned out to be right.
Advice moving up the pipeline from the bottom was often ignored. And from what we know, the inbred FBI culture abounds. Therefore, one must question whether if another threat to America is in the pipeline, will it be discovered in time? Will we be any safer today than five years ago?
According to the testimony of the head of the 9/11 commission, it didn’t seem that we were responding fast enough to the challenges laid out in the first report to signal any vast difference in the way we would respond to a challenge today than we did five years ago.
Viewed from that perspective, we have to give even more credit to our British allies for putting the task of investigation first. Nevertheless, although we cut a break, the fact that we are still not prepared is cause for considerable concern on the part of every informed individual in this country and is important enough to prompt a second set of hearings detailing what we are going to do at this stage of the game to address America’s needs in the war against terrorism.
Les aaron
