Future attack on U.S.

WASHINGTON - FBI and Justice Department officials Thursday defended their decision to warn the public about the potential for a devastating terrorist attack on America this summer, saying it was justified by intelligence and essential to avoid missteps that occurred before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Their defense came amid criticism from lawmakers and some Bush administration officials with access to the same intelligence. They said Wednesday's announcement by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller was overblown and caused unnecessary public concern.

Republican Rep. Christopher Cox of California, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said the Ashcroft-Mueller news conference mistakenly led some to believe the nation's threat level had been increased. He called it "regrettable" that Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge did not join Ashcroft and Mueller.

"Their separate public appearances left the impression that the broad and close interagency consultation we expect _ and which the law requires _ may not have taken place in this case," Cox said.

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse reiterated Thursday his agency has not seen any change in the "steady stream of threat reporting."

"We do not have any new intelligence or specific information about al-Qaida planning an attack," he said.

Cassandra Chandler, assistant FBI director for public affairs, acknowledged intelligence about the threat has been coming in for some time. However, she said it now is being backed by a higher degree of corroboration.

She said the announcement was intended to demonstrate to Americans and the world that the FBI is focused on trying to thwart an attack. "This clearly demonstrates our commitment to prevention," Chandler said.

Publicity about the threat and the accompanying plea for the public's help in apprehending seven suspected al-Qaida terrorists are a stark contrast to the FBI's actions in the summer of 2001, when intelligence officials warned President Bush of terror threats in an Aug. 6 memo called "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S."

Testimony to Congress and the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks showed the FBI lacked a national, coordinated response to those 2001 threats. Some agents in charge of FBI field offices in large cities were unaware of the magnitude of the threat, and there was no headquarters-led effort to collect counterterrorism intelligence.

This time, before making the latest public announcement, Mueller said he spoke to agents in charge of all 56 field offices about "the heightened threat" and urged them to devote whatever manpower and resources necessary to counter it. The FBI also has a special task force to focus specifically on the threat.

"We don't want to repeat the problems we had in the summer of 2001," said Michael Greenberger, a former counterterrorism official in President Clinton's Justice Department and now a University of Maryland professor. "You have to circle the wagons and put on a full-court press. You can't just sit there waiting for actionable intelligence."

New publicity about the seven al-Qaida suspects being sought _ six of whom have been pursued by the FBI for months _ had generated more than 2,000 tips to an FBI Web site since Wednesday afternoon. It normally receives 200 terrorism-related leads every day.

One discordant note in the new terror threat announcement was the decision by the Homeland Security Department to recommend keeping the color-coded threat level at yellow, the midpoint on a five-color scale. That raised questions as to whether there was dissent in the Bush administration about how to interpret the threat intelligence.

"It is confusing that this administration would indicate that al-Qaida is far along the road to planning a major attack in the United States but not raise the threat level," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Asa Hutchinson, Homeland Security undersecretary for border and transportation security, attributed the difference to the Justice Department's focus on law enforcement and his agency's focus on efforts to protect the country.

"We're well-coordinated and we're articulating the same message," Hutchinson said.

Justice Department officials also say publicity about terror threats can deter operations, sometimes delaying them to give investigators more time to find the operatives.

"It's part of our strategy to defeat the bad guys," said Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo. "It puts them on edge."

------------------------

This is crazy I just hope it can be prevented. It is going to suck ass if we have our selves another Sept. 11, on our hands but only durring the summer. I just hope that someone will get some more information and maybe this can be prevented with out possible failure. Here is a list of photos of the seven people wanted (http://www.fbi.gov/) for beleaf of information to the possible attack or also being apart of the attack.

What I find more disturbing that the terrorists threat, is the Homeland commitee. This commitee directs both the CIA, the FBI and other agencies, such as FEMA. Whoever is in charge of that commitee is the real president of the United States. Never was the centralisation of power so apparant in the US.

Back to the terrorist threat, however. 911. A very important number in the history of the US. The pentagon was finished on 9/11/1941, George Bush announced the New World Order on 9/11/1991. And there are other similarities of this number that I will not go into. Nevertheless, the fact that the attack happened on 9/11/2001 was not coïncedental. In fact, the attack on Spain, also an attack by Al Queda happened 911 days after 9/11/2001.
I think that from this fact that you can deduct that Al Queda relies heavily on numerology. I doubt we will expect anothe attack for at least 911 after the attack on Spain, as it would be illogical for them to attack before that.

We must not forget that the US get's a lot of threats each day, and that they are all waiting on the desk of 'Homeland Security'. In any case, just stating that terrorists may be active is nonsense. The only reason it could have is to drive more people behind the campaign of George 'Dubya' Bush. If, however, an attack is made against the American people, and I must force that I dearly hope that won't happen, I feel it will be a severe indication that the Bush administration was behind it: they are losing votes each speech, and it's not like Bush is keeping a score on how many people he has had murdered.

I read a text today, during my Dutch exams about the exchange of privacy for protection, for safety. A communication expert stated that our freedom of speech, and our democracy is the greatest weapon against terrorism. And although I do not fully agree with him, I do agree on the part that we should never exchange any liberties for temporarily safety.
Do you really believe that if the government gains priviledges in accessing your private files, that they will releave themselves of these priviledges as soon as the threat is over? No.. Of course not! They will continue to hold this power, and it will continue to spread untill the difference between democracy and totalitarian regime are lessened to zero. Think about it. They have removed the value of every word to express our feelings of independence in. Freedom, truth, independence, sovereignity. These words, and other words for which people were once ready to die, are slowly losing their meaning.

Mr U

Great ideas of human history...turn people against their neighbours! What genius...make everyone suspicious of everyone else, thus creating the most overt recreation of the '1984' and 'Brave New World' paranoia this world has ever seen...

Good work, fella...

Bah. All they did was tell people to be on the lookout for particular faces. What's the big deal? To me it makes sense if we're speaking of a specific, big attack. It doesn't take a lot to go wrong for a terrorist attack with a lot riding on it to be cancelled... I don't understand why this is interesting to non-Americans though...

Well yes if you do not live in America then you have nothing to worry about but since it is my homeland it means alot to me. just like where ever you live if something happend there it would be a big deal to you but not me. But there are some people out there that dont live in America and still have feelings for it, and I guess you are not one of them. no big deal, but I still would like to get more info on this and see if there is a good chance if this is all on big mistake because I dont want anything like sept. 11 to happen to my home land again.

I didn't mean it that way AO. I wouldn't like innocents to be murdered in America any more than I would like them being murdered anywhere else. It's sad and it's wrong. I was actually directing my comments more toward HU's and Ou Be's criticism. I don't understand why this insignificant action means so much to them, as I know they're both not American. All I said was that I thought this was very possibly a good idea.
I hope with you that America and the world are kept as safe as possible. ;)

bleh, that's just a campaign coup.

Al kaida is bound to strike anywhere, especially in the states, that's not news, is it ?
Going on a war in irak won't help the feelings nor kill any terrorists, since they are on anybody's territory already.

Originally posted by freeyourmind
I didn't mean it that way AO. I wouldn't like innocents to be murdered in America any more than I would like them being murdered anywhere else. It's sad and it's wrong. I was actually directing my comments more toward HU's and Ou Be's criticism. I don't understand why this insignificant action means so much to them, as I know they're both not American. All I said was that I thought this was very possibly a good idea.
I hope with you that America and the world are kept as safe as possible. ;)

Well thank you FYM for clearing that up and Iam sorry for being so rude but as I said before being an American and knowing that this summer there could very well be an attack it is scary. The same goes to you and where ever you live.:D

It's not scary at all, in fact. The Netherlands also joined in the attack against Iraq, and I live next to DSM (Dutch State Mines), and Sabic (Saudi-Arabic Basic Industries Corporation) 'factories'. These factories have vast amounts of flammable contents, and should they blow up, they'll be able to scrape me up in Egypt.

I too face a threat, but that does not scare me the least. It is this fear, you see, that is the greatest weapon of the terrorist. It isn't killing those people, but it is the increased paranoia, the growing fear in the people of the Free World that drives them.

Mr U

Originally posted by freeyourmind
Bah. All they did was tell people to be on the lookout for particular faces. What's the big deal? I don't understand why this is interesting to non-Americans though...

Uhhhhh...maybe it's interesting to non-Americans because the paranoia generated by such an action will ultimately lead to more 'pre-emptive strikes' by a Government who have absolutely no respect for any other country in the world. Self-interest is too light a word to describe the pigs currently stuffing themselves on a rotten apple American pie.

Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
Uhhhhh...maybe it's interesting to non-Americans because the paranoia generated by such an action will ultimately lead to more 'pre-emptive strikes' by a Government who have absolutely no respect for any other country in the world. Self-interest is too light a word to describe the pigs currently stuffing themselves on a rotten apple American pie.
I don't follow your logic. Surely if the source of the threat is identified and focused on specifically like was done here rather than identified generally as "Middle-Eastern" or the like then paranoia will decrease...
Of course this will lead to more cautiousness, but isn't it possible that considering the magnitude of the threat the request for cautiousness is justified? I would have thought that generating panic would be blankly stating that a huge attack is about to take place - which would lead to people being afraid of getting out of their homes, to the threat level being raised, to growing hate and mistrust towards the Mideast countries - but I think that this warning was conducted rather reasonably... they were told when the attack is set to take place and who the suspects are. I just don't see how this will cause undue panic...

You say that you think this action was motivated by self-interest. But is it smart politically to give people a sense of weakened state of security so close to the elections? Perhaps if there was time for another war in the long run it would lead to popularity, but as it is, if this is a lie, all it would do is make people feel that the government can't keep the country secure.
It could be argued is that this step is being taken because the Americans know they have no chance of stopping the attack and are trying to minimize political loss that would come from it, but that's a different argument altogether...

To me what this seems like is a case of internal security, where steps that would be politically costly in the short run are being taken so that even bigger political loss would be avoided in the long run.

HU, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Do you mean that it is more important for a state to keep the morale and sense of security of the people high than to protect their lives?
Of course we shouldn't allow terror to send the people into panic, but in the case of a real and serious threat, shouldn't all the necessary precautions be taken?
I think the question here is whether or not the fear that will be generated by the warning statement was justified by the threat, but it seems to me like what you are saying is that no matter what the threat, all form of fear must be avoided.
Though I think this thinking is twisted (and I'm going ahead on the assumption that I understood your point. If not, disregard :p), even according to this logic, if people are not warned of attacks and precautions that would frighten them are not taken, then the successful attacks themselves will generate panic and paranoia, in much larger amounts then the precautions would...

A random example, I don't even know whether this is true or not, but I'll state it anyway for the sake of argument.

Imagine that there were no cameras on airports before 9/11. Now, after the disaster, everyone wants more security, so they can feel safer. The US government installs cameras, which not only register terrorists but also the activities of normal civilians.

Imagine that the US somehow eliminates the terrorist threat (which would be a crippling blow to the US's agenda, but still, hypothetically speaking...). Do you believe that they would remove the cameras? Do you believe that they would put down a large portion of their newly-acquired power?

That, FYM, is what I am talking about. One should never exchange liberties for temporarily freedom. You can not fight terrorism with more cameras or more checkups. "You can not stop a man who is willing to risk his life." Someone once correctly stated. If I'm willing to die for my cause, nothing can stop me. I will find a way to detonate a bomb, or crash something into something else. No matter how well secured it is.

Basically, what I am trying to say is that there is no defence against terrorism. The only thing you can do is either annihalate the countries from which they originate (:hi: Need I even bring up ethics?) or you can convince these people with a message of peace that we are not the enemy.

And if you take away the idea that the US and Europe are the enemy, you take away the terrorist threat. Now, I leave it to you to state that it is in the nature of the Islamic people to hate, and that peace can never conquer. I'm sure that's what the British said when Gandhi drove them off.

For one hundred years we have tried to eradicate the Muslim people and we have failed. Miserably. Is it so strange that they will venge those who have died? The least we can do is try to reduce that hatred against us and try to show them compassion and love.

Mr U

Originally posted by freeyourmind
I don't follow your logic. Surely if the source of the threat is identified and focused on specifically like was done here rather than identified generally as "Middle-Eastern" or the like then paranoia will decrease...


So everyone is going to carry around photos of those suspects rather than cast a cautious eye at anyone who looks middle-eastern!?!?!?!?!?! Get real. You don't follow my logic, because logic is for people with brains.

Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
A random example, I don't even know whether this is true or not, but I'll state it anyway for the sake of argument.

Imagine that there were no cameras on airports before 9/11. Now, after the disaster, everyone wants more security, so they can feel safer. The US government installs cameras, which not only register terrorists but also the activities of normal civilians.

Imagine that the US somehow eliminates the terrorist threat (which would be a crippling blow to the US's agenda, but still, hypothetically speaking...). Do you believe that they would remove the cameras? Do you believe that they would put down a large portion of their newly-acquired power?
No, I don't think that they will willingly give up that power. But rather than deciding therefore to give up on any and all measures of security, I think it'll be a good idea to take necessary precatutions to ensure that the country is not turned into a Big Brother state just because of security - this could be done by tough lawmaking regarding the security measures and in not going crazy in giving up civil rights. Some must inevitably be given up or harmed (puh. Somehow I don't think this is the right word), but of course that not all. Caution must be taken when putting forward new security measures not to harm more civil liberties than is absolutely necessary.
Again, as I said, I think it's a question of how the harming of civil liberties compares to the level of threat. Am I correct in assuming that you think that nothing in the world could ever justify taking any security measures? What if there's a threat of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Or maybe you just think that the specific precautions the Americans are taking are not suitable for the level of the threat on them?

Anyhow, we seem to have branched off topic. The question here wasn't about civil liberties vs security threat. It was security threat vs informing the public... The former point I can see why would be troubling for some and an interesting discussion (though still I don't understand the great interest for a non-American...), but with the latter point, which was the one brought up by the writer of the thread, I can't for the life of me see the reason for yours and Ou Be's strong negative reaction. What's the friggen big deal?

I don't mind discussing the question of civil liberties vs security threat, it's much more interesting. But before we do so, I think it's important that we settle where we stand on the first point of security threat vs informing the public. I'm not sure I understand where you stand on this. We seemed to have mixed both arguments together (civil liberties and driving the people into panic), which is not the way to go if we want to reach any conclusion... so, before we deal with the question of civil liberties, lets see why you think that the warning statement by the US security forces wasn't reasonable... lets just redefine where we stand. I say this was reasonable because it's a threat of a big attack and I think that knowing the suspects' faces is an efficent security measure that is not likely to generate undue panic. Now, where do you stand and why?
That, FYM, is what I am talking about. One should never exchange liberties for temporarily freedom. You can not fight terrorism with more cameras or more checkups. "You can not stop a man who is willing to risk his life." Someone once correctly stated. If I'm willing to die for my cause, nothing can stop me. I will find a way to detonate a bomb, or crash something into something else. No matter how well secured it is.
Wrong. A man who is willing to sacrifice his life for an act of terror is tougher to stop than an average terrorist, but it is not impossible to stop him.
I can give you an example from my country's situation. I don't know the exact numbers but I know that something like 250 suicide attacks were attempted on Israelis, of them 130 were successful and 120 we stopped. So it's not impossible to stop, and though our percentage of prevention in this case is signifcantly lower than in others, the fact remains that if we took our security lightly hundreds more could have been murdered.
So while I agree with you that it is not a good idea to fight terrorism exclusively by military means, you can't say it's not worth anything...

Now that I have demonstrated that security measures can indeed be successful in stopping even suicide attacks, does it make more sense that some form of security measures should possibly be considered in some cases? Or is that still a blank no?
Basically, what I am trying to say is that there is no defence against terrorism. The only thing you can do is either annihalate the countries from which they originate (:hi: Need I even bring up ethics?) or you can convince these people with a message of peace that we are not the enemy.
I agree. Security measures alone will not defeat terrorism, but what they will do is prevent specific attacks, maybe even a great number of specific attacks, and they can also weaken the infrastructure of terrorism, but I agree, terrorism cannot be defeated unless really insane measures are taken and more innocents are killed than would be saved for it. It may yet come to that, though I dearly hope not, but I sure prefer your second alternative.
But what do you do to an organisation like Al Queda? It doesn't want your love, it wants you to turn to Islam. Unless America turns Islamic, nothing will help it against Al Queda, since the organisation is making a demand that can't be met. No amount of love will ever help. Even if all America does is good for these nations, there will still be enough powerful people supporting the organisation, and there will always be enough people fanatic enough to join the organisation anyway (for religious reasons). A terrorist organisation's strength doesn't lie in its numbers, but in its financing, mastermind leaders, and fanatically devoted members - all things that will not be beaten simply by "love and compassion".
What would you do to Al Queda?
And if you take away the idea that the US and Europe are the enemy, you take away the terrorist threat. Now, I leave it to you to state that it is in the nature of the Islamic people to hate, and that peace can never conquer. I'm sure that's what the British said when Gandhi drove them off.
I don't know where you got this from. I never said anything about hate being the natural state for Muslims. Gandhi is totally inappropriate here since his struggle was a peaceful one. What I'm trying to say is that this is a complex conflict, and you seem to keep oversimplifying it. It's not that easy unfortunately. Many people have tried the ways you offered before. It's never worked because it was too naive a way. This situation needs more thought then you are giving it.
Peace must conquer in the end. It's the only way. If there's no peace then your enemy grows stronger, and dealing with more powerful organisations then those we deal with today is not something that anyone would like. No, peace must come in the end. One way or another it will come. The question is just how much blood would have to be spilt in order to get there - that's the reason terrorism has been going on for so long. People are trying to figure out a way to defeat it whilst spilling the minimum blood. But if we wait much longer then we'll just have a bigger problem on our hands. We need to realise that this is a serious conflict and deal with it seriously rather than waiting around. But the solution would definitely be a difficult one...
For one hundred years we have tried to eradicate the Muslim people and we have failed. Miserably. Is it so strange that they will venge those who have died? The least we can do is try to reduce that hatred against us and try to show them compassion and love.

Mr U
I don't understand who this "we" is that you keep talking about. The colonial conquests took place everywhere. Millions of people are suffering and millions have suffered in the past. Acts of terror never happened in this magnitude until it got organised in groups that incite to violence, pay for violence, and orchestrate it.
Come on, who's guilty for the terrorism here; the aforementioned organisations, or the victimised countries?
My point here is that the existence of the terrorist organisations shouldn't be overlooked. They are an important part of the equation and must be taken into account if we want a viable solution to this situation.


Ou Be, I don't know what you're on about. Do you want to discuss this or do you want to whine? That reply wasn't an answer... but if this argument is below you, by all means, feel free to stay out.

Well seeing as iam going to San Diego CA. this summer, and I will be taking a plain it is very scary. In my opinion none of the cameras or video stuff makes me feel any safer. With or with out I still feal scared knowing that anything can happen, low on gas, terrorists or anything else for that matter. But knowing that the attack is aimed for this summer and that is when I leave for San Diego it puts more stress on me and my family. You see things like this can change your life for ever. For example: before 9/11 I was not scared of flying and after...well iam scared of flying. I just dont like the fact that the attack this summer can happen anywhere and be done with anything. I just pray to god that nothing happens and that my family and I can have a safe trip. God threats suck.

Originally posted by freeyourmind
Ou Be, I don't know what you're on about. Do you want to discuss this or do you want to whine? That reply wasn't an answer... but if this argument is below you, by all means, feel free to stay out.

Oh no! Not again!

FYI, FYM it was a rhetorical question. People are simply going to be suspicious of people who look middle-eastern. It's not going to create a nation-wide public manhunt for those SPECIFIC people the government published pictures of. Do you understand now?

Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
Oh no! Not again!

FYI, FYM it was a rhetorical question. People are simply going to be suspicious of people who look middle-eastern. It's not going to create a nation-wide public manhunt for those SPECIFIC people the government published pictures of. Do you understand now?
Yeah, I understood your point, but it is one you raised before. You didn't answer what I said about means that have to be taken in order to make sure attacks are not actualised. Do you also think that nothing in the world could ever stop a terrorist attack? What do you have to say then about the numbers I brought from the Palestinian suicide attacks on Israel?

Of course a warning of terrorist threat is always going to cause trouble in terms of paranoia and hate, but I think the magnitude of this threat justifies the way they went about the threat - publishing specific pictures.
How would you go about security measures? What do you think will be the reasonable way? Or, again, do you think there isn't a reasonable way and no measures should ever be taken? Or do you think the threat is bogus? It's not clear at all where you stand on this and instead of clarifying you lash out. We will never get anywhere like that.
I also don't see what any of this has to do with your previous claim that this is about political gain. I countered your point, and you haven't countered that back either.

AO, don't be scared, that's foolish. It's rediculous to be afraid of terrorist attacks. It's good to be cautious, but that's just in case. The threat is nowhere as big as you probably think. Being afraid of flying or going to public places is unreasonable. To put it in perspective, everytime you get into a car you are in more danger of being killed. Don't live your life in fear. Especially when it's not justified ;)

Why thank you FYM you just made me feel a whole lot better now. I do infact know that you have a better chance of dying in a car or even drowning in your bath tub, but truth is I still would rather ride in a car then fly. About what is being said about being on the look out for iraqi looking people. Actually there was an american looking man that I heard might have info or even be apart of the so called attack. I dont think you should ever be on the look out for one kind of person becuase anyone can be...well anyone. Just be careful of who you watch out for and who you dont watch out for because anything is possible, and anyone can do anything to hurt people.