FAA had plenty of warnings.....

[tkhayes 348]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146947,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/10/911commission.faa.ap/index.html

Funny how this report did not come out BEFORE the election.

So instead of sacking the people that should have been sacked for not doing their jobs - not only the FAA, but the CIA, FBI, NSA, INS etc.

we invade two countries at a cost of $300B+, build the paranoid Dept. of Homeland Security (see HR418 thread - the law passed), and re-elect the guy that was in power when it all happened.

wow.

TK

[Ron 10]

Try reading the reports

Quote

The commission report, written last August, said five security warnings mentioned Al Qaeda's training for hijackings and two reports concerned suicide operations not connected to aviation.

However, none of the warnings pinpointed what would happen on September 11.

Just like the US has plans to invade a whole bunch of countries we will never actually invade I am sure other organizations have plans to do things that they will never do. You have to look for a REALISTIC threat. Otherwise we need to be afraid of everything.
OBL has been a threat since before the first WTC bombings....Why was he not more looked for?

Quote

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown on Thursday said the agency received intelligence from other agencies, which it passed on to airlines and airports.

But, she said, "We had no specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures."

Quote

Brown also said the FAA was in the process of tightening security at the time of the attacks.

"We were spending $100 million a year to deploy explosive detection equipment at the airports," she said. The agency was also close to issuing a regulation that would have set higher standards for screeners and, for the first time, give it direct control over the screening work force.

Quote

Of the FAA's 105 daily intelligence summaries between April 1, 2001 and September 10, 2001, 52 mentioned bin Laden, al Qaeda, or both, "mostly in regard to overseas threats

Quote

A proposed rule to improve passenger screening and other security measures ordered by Congress in 1996 had been held up by the Office of Management and Budget and was still not in effect when the attacks occurred, according to the FAA.

Sounds like the FAA (Notice not Bush) was doing things...Just not fast enough.

Also if Congress ordered it in 1996...Well what did Clinton do about it? I mean he had 4 years do do something, AND he had already been attacked once by OBL.

How is that Bush's fault?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mnealtx 0]

It's his fault because he had the gall to win over Kerry...didn't you know?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jdhill 0]

Quote

build the paranoid Dept. of Homeland Security (see HR418 thread - the law passed)

Its not a law yet... The bill passed the House, and still needs to get through the Senate, which is not a given... there is really only one objectionable clause in the bill anyway, that won't stand up to the first law suit even if it does pass.

Lots of agencies failed to connect the dots, but there is no evidence that there was anything the FAA had pointed to 9/11 in a direct way... Did they have blinders on that made them think a domestic attack was unlikely? Probably... but this is nothing new.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Ron 10]

Quote

It's his fault because he had the gall to win over Kerry...didn't you know?

I just wonder how people can blame Bush for things Clinton didn't do?

Quote

A proposed rule to improve passenger screening and other security measures ordered by Congress in 1996 had been held up by the Office of Management and Budget and was still not in effect when the attacks occurred, according to the FAA.

Clinton had 4 years...Bush had 9 mths.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[tkhayes 348]

I did read the reports - you read it as not acting fast enough, and I read it as not doing enough, period.

Your analysis is as good as mine, or as bad as mine, whichever way you want to look at it. My point was thqat I did not see the string of people sacked for not doing their jobs - which I believe is valid.

Enron gypped people out of money and people went to jail for it. USA security failed the American people, so we re-elect the government - ????


In 2005 we have VERY RESTRICTIVE travel and rules - why was that not implemented years ago when these threats were apparent?

I remember several years ago, several times, being stopped for vehicle searches at Tampa airport, during Clinton's reign (suyppoedly for terrorist threats that had been examined by the authorities) - so do not blame Clinton for that. I have yet to be searched int he same manner since Bush came to power. However I have had to surrrender my nail clippers on several occasions.

Yes the FAA was not doing things, so were other agencies (my original post's point). Who runs them all? Ultimately, George W Bush.

My other point was that solution we have implemented (war and DHS) may not have been a appropriate solution.

[tkhayes 348]

If it passed Congress, why would it not pass the Senate? And if the provision in the law says that it is lawsuit-proof, then how could it not survive the first lawsuit?

We have dozens of instances every day in this country where different courts have different rulings on the same subject. DHS/INS will use whatever ruling favors them or choose to ignore any ruling either way simply because the law now says they can. ("I have earned political capital and I intend to spend it.....")

I expect this will pass. I expect the DHS and INS will use whatever power thaey have been given if the law says they can do it.

I state again that this is a very bad idea and is part of the 'wrong' solution' that I stated in my first post.

I also believe that this is only part of the beginning of the end of freedoms in this country which those in power seem to have so many suckered into believeing that they are defending.

TK

[jdhill 0]

Quote

If it passed Congress, why would it not pass the Senate? And if the provision in the law says that it is lawsuit-proof, then how could it not survive the first lawsuit?

Because the House and Senate are two different places, and just because the are both controlled by republicans, does not mean they have the same agenda. The Senate repubicans want to deal with the DL issue in conjunction with broader immigration reforms, so it will meet some resistance as a stand alone bill.

No federal court, conservative or liberal, is going to allow the "no judicial review" language stand in any law... it violates the long standing principle of judicial review that all laws are subject to review, not just he ones congress says are OK... and the court is not going to let that go... They will see it as a intrusion into their constitutional powers (much like the gitmo detainee issue, the courts will decide who has standing, not the congress) given that this particular clause deals with building a barrier in California (9th Circuit) it will likely fall quickly (if it even makes it into the final law)

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[penniless 0]

One of the 911 commissioners was interviewed on the radio yesterday and said that while most of the redactions were to preserve national security, some of them were to prevent embarrassment to the administration.

[Ron 10]

Quote

I did read the reports - you read it as not acting fast enough, and I read it as not doing enough, period.

1996 congress passed the act that would screen travelers more. It was in the FAA's shop till after 9/11....Yes, they screwed up.

You seem to say it's Bush's fault. Bush had 9 mths Clinton had 4 years. If you want to place blame then it seems to me that both may be to blame...But I find it hard to blame it all on a guy that was only in office 9 mths. OBL was not really on the radar screen, he was a threat but most intel showed his targets to be outside the US. That is not the FAA's area of operations.

It is easy as hell to play arm chair QB after the game. But if people jumped at every piece of intel that *could* be a threat, not only would the Government have to be much larger and have MUCH more power (Which you seem to be against) but it would also have the chicken little effect.

You can only cry wolf so many times.

No one thought OBL could pull off an attack of that scope.

We had intel that AQ was learning to fly....Well that means they were either gonna start an airline, or hijack a plane. So we will go with hijack a plane. Well so? There have been hijackings since DB Cooper. Not one has taken a plane and used it as a missle. Well you say we had intel that guys were going to do suicide attacks....Yep, just like they have been doing for years.

We had Intel that someone had planned to use a plane to crash into the Eiffel tower in France....They did not do it, so that idea dropped off the radar.

Pearl Harbor was also a failing of the intel community. Task Force Smith was another, Little Big Horn was still another.

As long as people want to do damage...they will.

I find it funny that you blame this failure on a guy that had been in charge for 9 mths.

Quote

Enron gypped people out of money and people went to jail for it. USA security failed the American people, so we re-elect the government - ????

People have been replaced in both the CIA and FBI. You are just not happy that Bush did not get replaced...Simplest answer he was a better canidate than Kerry. Best answer is that most people don't see how he was responsible for 9/11. That would be like blaming you for all the bounces at SDC.

Quote

I remember several years ago, several times, being stopped for vehicle searches at Tampa airport, during Clinton's reign (suyppoedly for terrorist threats that had been examined by the authorities) - so do not blame Clinton for that. I have yet to be searched int he same manner since Bush came to power

I WORK at an international Airport. I know what security is doing...Trust me it is MUCH higher than it was.

I find it funny you claim:

Quote

I have yet to be searched int he same manner since Bush came to power

Then say:

Quote

However I have had to surrrender my nail clippers on several occasions.

So which is is? Is there MORE or LESS security now?

Lets see car searches, or searching people....I have yet to see a car hijack a plane, and we have not had a rash of car bombings at airports.

The BS searches that my car went through are nothing...I have had pocket knives on me and they never caught them....They didn't work and thats why they went away.

And BTW they had them after 9/11 till about a year ago.

Quote

In 2005 we have VERY RESTRICTIVE travel and rules - why was that not implemented years ago when these threats were apparent?

Congress passed the new rules in 1996....I have no idea whay they didn't get put into place. But I tend to blame the FAA, not Bush for it.

Quote

Yes the FAA was not doing things, so were other agencies (my original post's point). Who runs them all? Ultimately, George W Bush.

Clinton had those agencies for 8 years and we had several attacks on the US INCLUDING the WTC by OBL once before. Why not blame the guy that had 8 YEARS instead of the guy that had 9 mths?

Simple you like to bash Bush.

Quote

My other point was that solution we have implemented (war and DHS) may not have been a appropriate solution.

Iraq was not a soultion to 9/11. Afganistan was. AQ owned Afganistan. That was a good choice.

DHS is not a BAD idea. It has made some really stupid mistakes, but so has every Govenment organization....I don't see you bitching about all the stupid mistakes the Welfare system makes. DCF..ect.

I also find it funny that you claim that the Government should have done more...But bitch about the Government having to much power. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1474593#1474593

So how do you expect the Government to do anything if all they can do is ask the terrorists to be nice?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

In 2005 we have VERY RESTRICTIVE travel and rules - why was that not implemented years ago when these threats were apparent?

Weren't you bitching about a Presidential temporary flight restriction a little while ago that shut down your DZ? (Source)

First you bitch about security flight restrictions, and now you bitch about how they weren't done sooner. I wish you would make up your mind...

* * *

P.S. Ron: thanks for your informative responses here!

[DrewGPM 0]

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[tkhayes 348]

Presidential TFR's do NOTHING to secure the American public - is that not obvious to you?

They do a lot to secure the PRESIDENT. They do interrupt my business and my customer's leisure time, take away revenues from my staff, and generally DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reduce the level of terrorism in this country.

They cost the economy millions and millions every year.

The TFR discussion had its own thread(s) many times over with all the reasons why they are plain silly. I have posted many reasons why TFR's do not do much for security, except demonstrate again to the world why we have a paranoid government. (Did I not use those terms in my original post?)

Am I for heightened security? Yes. Am I for taking away nail clippers? absolutely not.

Israel puts armed soldiers on every flight, eliminating hijacking 100% since 1972. There is somethign practical that we could have done. Apparently it works. $300B plus the DHS, as I said in my original post, is not the right answer.

TK

[dorbie 0]

Dude they never knew, they knew there was a potential threat & a risk. The whole world has known about this. Ever read Tom Clancy? I have, did I fly afterwards? Yes!

Ever hear of the French hijacking where they took out the hijackers on the runway? It's believed the intent was to fly that into the Eiffel Tower if they'd gotten the fuel they wanted. I knew about this before 9/11 and a lot of other people did too.

The only surprise in this is the use of simple boxcutters for the hijacking, I don't think anyone anticipated that. It means there was no risk of them being discovered at security. Even if the US had anticipated the attack they probably still wouldn't have been screening for boxcutters, we didn't know. Maybe if the pilot had known their intent he wouldn't have let them invade the cockpit threatening to slit throats, but you can't know the ultimate intent of someone in that situation.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

: I did read the reports - you read it as not acting fast enough, and I read it as not doing enough, period.

Like the how many times clinton misses BL?

[tkhayes 348]

Like the how many times we PAID BL and trained him? Seems the US gov't set themselves up.

Besides the point at this point. My original post was how no one really got sacked for not doing their jobs properly and that we are doing too many of the wrong things to solve the problem

TK

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Presidential TFR's do NOTHING to secure the American public - is that not obvious to you? They do a lot to secure the PRESIDENT. They do interrupt my business and my customer's leisure time, take away revenues from my staff, and generally DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reduce the level of terrorism in this country.

Is your business more important than the security of the President, the symbol of the United States?

[christelsabine 1]

Is your business more important than the security of the President, the symbol of the United States?

[Kennedy 0]

I bet he's against the Secret Service sealing windows over parade routes and appearance sites, too.

Hell, with that attitude, he might just be against the entire protective detail section of the Secret Service since it costs money and is thus a burden on his business.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

Is your business more important than the security of the President, the symbol of the United States?

I thought the anti flag-burning amendment supporters made their case based on the flag's being the symbol of the US of A. And then there's the Eagle, and Uncle Sam.

I hardly think the President symbolizes the country.

• Quote

[tkhayes 348]

Did I say my business is more important that Presidential security? No I did nto, not sure where you read that.

I said MILLIONS of dollars are lost every year due to it. Millions of dollars over probably thousands of businesses.

Now ask me if THOUSANDS of businesses are worth more than Presidential security. Yes they are. WHen it starts to cost them MILLIONS of dollars every year.

People seem to be blind to what all this costs and this the President must be protected at ANY and ALL cost. Blind faith - kinda like some sort of religion or something.

I remeber in the 80's when they announced that the Pres security was costing $1M/day. A lot of people freaked out - it made headline news.

What does it cost today? I expect you will never find out because GWB would never let the public knwo that for fear of reprisals and public outcry.

I expect it is millions of dollars every day. More when he travels, which is much of the time.

So what if it cost $1B/day? What if it was 10B/day/ Why not put a 100mile radius around him, why not 200miles? This was all discussed int he thread about that very topic.

There needs to be a limit. Your limit is obviously VASTLY greater than what I am willing to put up with.

You see a need to protect our great leader. I see a chicken-shit President who is paranoid and fearful for his life everywhere he goes, but instead of doing soemthing about it with foreign and popular policies, he uses MY tax dollars to surround himself with a wall.

Back to the thread - you questioned my beliefs in improved 'security'. Hopefully I answered it, but thanks for trying to change the thread.

TK

[tkhayes 348]

No, not since it costs money - but since it costs a LOT of money. Probably an order of magnitutde greater than the next greatest world leader's security costs.

How much are you willing to spend? Do you send checks to the Secret Service if you believe in it so much?

Try not to put words in my mouth, it is disparaging

I never said anything about parade routes, or the Secret Service.

TK

[gkc1436 3]

I also believe that this is only part of the beginning of the end of freedoms in this country which those in power seem to have so many suckered into believeing that they are defending.

TK


hear hear...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I thought the anti flag-burning amendment supporters made their case based on the flag's being the symbol of the US of A. And then there's the Eagle, and Uncle Sam. I hardly think the President symbolizes the country.

A flag is just a piece of cloth, there are plenty of them, and we can make more.

The President is a man, one and only, and cannot be replaced with a duplicate clone of himself.

I'm sure you can see the difference.

The President is the leader of the country, and everywhere he goes he is the symbol of it, and for what it stands.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Did I say my business is more important that Presidential security? No I did nto, not sure where you read that.

I said MILLIONS of dollars are lost every year due to it. Millions of dollars over probably thousands of businesses. Now ask me if THOUSANDS of businesses are worth more than Presidential security. Yes they are. WHen it starts to cost them MILLIONS of dollars every year.

I didn't claim you said that - I asked a question.

Yes, presidential security is expensive. That's the way it goes. We should not lessen his security and let terrorists assassinate him, just because security costs businesses a little income.

What would the cost be to business, to freedom, and to the entire world, if the President was assassinated by terrorists? Well, how much income was lost due to the 9/11 attacks? Billions. Do you want a repeat of that?

And that's just the money part. Beyond that, the impact upon our feeling of security in our cities, and the effect upon foreign relations, would be dramatic.

I think presidential and national security is worth more than a few bucks in your pocket, and those of the other businessmen about whom you are concerned. Business profit is not the primary factor for determining how much presidential security should be implemented.

Quote

I see a chicken-shit President who is paranoid and fearful for his life everywhere he goes, but instead of doing soemthing about it with foreign and popular policies, he uses MY tax dollars to surround himself with a wall.

Ah, now your true colors come out.

So you think we should give in to terrorist demands, and then they'll magically leave us alone?

Do you think you could run a popular and profitable drop zone in Iran?