Attacks on americans

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
And all I'm saying is that with all the alleged "warnings" given, I still doubt it could have been averted.
It's like locks. Locks keep basicly honest people out, but don't really do to much to keep out a dedicated thief.

But with the loss of 3,000++ American lives I would think that there would have been SOME WAY that we could have done better.

[Arrian]

Maybe. Maybe not. Lets say that the FBI or CIA, or any other agency for that matter was warned by an informant or friendly government that a terrorist group was planning a major attack on US soil.

Now imagine you are running said agency. How do you prevent 9/11?

-Arrian

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Arrian
Maybe. Maybe not. Lets say that the FBI or CIA, or any other agency for that matter was warned by an informant or friendly government that a terrorist group was planning a major attack on US soil.

Now imagine you are running said agency. How do you prevent 9/11?

-Arrian

1) Those suspects that the CIA was aware of beforehand -- I would have immediately apprehended them for questioning.

2) The belated debate over whether airline pilots should be given stun guns in cockpits -- I would have had this proposal carried out, based on the above hypothetical warning you posted.

3) All other flight trainees who were requesting to only know how to fly and not land or take off, would also be brought in for questioning.

4) The fighter jets that would have been able to reach and intercept the planes would have been given an immediate warning and promptly intercepted the planes.

I'm not sure what other preparation measures I would enact.

[Arrian]

That's it, I say we hire Mr. Fun as director of the FBI.

Look, all I'm saying is that it's pretty easy for you to say all of that now.

I think the biggest lapse was where it always seems to be: getting the critical information to the right people. Just like Pearl Harbor (let's leave the conspiracy theory out of it... it's possible, I know), where we had intercepts that indicated the Japanese fleet was coming, but the info didn't make it to Washington in time.

-Arrian

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Arrian
That's it, I say we hire Mr. Fun as director of the FBI.

Look, all I'm saying is that it's pretty easy for you to say all of that now.

I think the biggest lapse was where it always seems to be: getting the critical information to the right people. Just like Pearl Harbor (let's leave the conspiracy theory out of it... it's possible, I know), where we had intercepts that indicated the Japanese fleet was coming, but the info didn't make it to Washington in time.

-Arrian

Hindsight is always this way -- and at least I'm not claiming that I knew something like this was going to happen before 9/11.

But those people who work for the FBI and the CIA -- maybe they should have reformed their systematic methods in distributing and correlating all the information they receive.

But alas, that won't bring back the 3,000++ dead Americans.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by MrFun
1) Those suspects that the CIA was aware of beforehand -- I would have immediately apprehended them for questioning.

And you could be sued, you can't just question people and arrest them unless they ACTUALLY did something.
Untill 9/11 they were guilty of getting flying lessons.

2) The belated debate over whether airline pilots should be given stun guns in cockpits -- I would have had this proposal carried out, based on the above hypothetical warning you posted.

The planes need to have some form of defense, stun guns sounds like a good non-lethal method.

3) All other flight trainees who were requesting to only know how to fly and not land or take off, would also be brought in for questioning.

Again, you can't just arrest people and question them unless they did something.
Our own Constitution prohibits this.

4) The fighter jets that would have been able to reach and intercept the planes would have been given an immediate warning and promptly intercepted the planes.

Could Bush have given such an order BEFORE the first plane hit the WTC?
It had never been done before (suicide hijacked airliner), suppose that wasn't the plan and Bush ordered an airforce plane to kill a plane load of US hostages.
He would have been lynched.

I'm not sure what other preparation measures I would enact.

Your speaking with 20/20 hindsight.
Perhaps they could have put these people under survalence, but the desire to commit a terrorist act isn't against the law, commiting or attempting to commit it is a crime.
There are very tricky leagal questions involved that I'm not qualified to answer in reguards to this.

[Solly]

SMAC Fanatic,

Did you know that for every £1 third world countries are given in aid, £9 goes back in debt payoffs?

Do you understand anything about the time value of money? www.teachmefinance.com <-- Have a look.

If the countries had used the money sensibly, they would be able to pay it back. Allowing countries that used money irresponsibly to be free of any debt repayments is giving an incentives to countries in the future to use handouts irresponsibly.

But is moral hazard a little too complex for lefties to understand..?

[Velociryx]

Scary thing is, Chris...before 9/11, it would have been illegal to arrest people before they did anything. Not any more, apparently....

-=Vel=-

[SlowwHand]

You can and could detain people for "suspicion of".
Still, it's doubtful the outcome could have been prevented.
I'm probably wrong, but I doubt that too.

[Chris 62]

Airforce, you can detain for 24 hours, and they are allowed a laywer present before answering anything.

You think those punks would have spilled their guts?

Highly unlikely.

[Velociryx]

The thing that to this day ticks me off is the way investigations about the events surrounding 9/11 are being squelched by the current administration.

The fact is that two big planes hit two big buildings in the US of A.

After the first plane hit, there was a span of time before the second plane hit.

If someone somewhere knew about it, then let's hear it. Let's research and investigate and find out what went wrong with the protocols that are in place (or that were in place on 9/11) and find out exactly where we went wrong.

That seems a sane, logical, reasonable approach.

Finding answers to questions that need to be asked.

It does not seem sane, or logical, or reasonable to stop investigations into the matter cold.

Unless there's something to hide, of course.

-=Vel=-
(not saying there IS something to hide, btw...just asking the question)

[Chris 62]

It was less then 15 minutes between plane hits, not a lot of time.

We always do this, look to point a finger.

The only thing we can really point at is our own way of life, having an open society.

That sh1thead OBL knows this, and used it against us perfectly.

Bush isn't to blame, nor the CIA or FBI, WE are to blame, because we didn't take those jerks seriously.

We do now, as they have found out to thier extreme discomfort the last 9 months, and it's not over by a long shot.

[Velociryx]

Chris...I agree with you.

But that still doesn't answer the question why the current administration is stomping any and all investigation into the matter flat.

If fifteen minutes isn't a big enough window...then that is a valid answer, and investigation will bear that out.

But the investigation is not being allowed to proceed.

That's....troubling.

-=Vel=-

[SlowwHand]

I just want to point out that how long a person can be held that you referenced pertains to citizens of the country only.
They've had punks held at Guantanamo Bay for a lot longer than 24 hours, thankfully IMO.
You are certainly right about finger pointing.

[Velociryx]

It is all the more troubling because we ARE known for having a relatively open society.

-=Vel=-