   3 years later, same mess
  Sadly it seems that the "no actionable items" "no one told me I was supposed to act on it" "I was sure the FBI was already doing something about it" nonsense practiced during the summer of Bin Ladin determined to strike inside the US is still going on. The big announcement by John Ashcroft that there was significant evidence that Al-Qaeda is planning to strike the US this summer - "This disturbing intelligence indicates al Qaeda's specific intention to hit the United States hard" - came not only as a surprise to some members of the general public, but also to a little arm of the US government known as the Department of Homeland Security. While the DoHS obviously knew a press converence was scheduled, they where led to believe it was just gong to be a reiteration of information about 7 known suspects. What Tom Ridge, head of the DoHS, did not expect was to find out that there was apparently important intelligence about an upcoming attack on the US that John Ashcroft and the FBI had kept hidden up until the moment they said it on camera.Can the US hope to stop future attacks by Al-Qaeda or other terrorists if various departments are stilling serving only their own petty interests, withholding vital information from one another so it can be used for their exclusive political gain? Aren't there some jobs that shouldn't be subject to corperate ladder climbing games? 
quote:Original post by Michalson  Can the US hope to stop future attacks by Al-Qaeda or other terrorists if various departments are stilling serving only their own petty interests, withholding vital information from one another so it can be used for their exclusive political gain? Aren''t there some jobs that shouldn''t be subject to corperate ladder climbing games?   To be honest I believe the US is doomed to face Al Qaeda attacks and not be able to do anything about it as long as Bush is in power with his minions. ;quote:Original post by Michalson  Can the US hope to stop future attacks by Al-Qaeda or other terrorists if various departments are stilling serving only their own petty interests, withholding vital information from one another so it can be used for their exclusive political gain?No.quote:Aren''t there some jobs that shouldn''t be subject to corperate ladder climbing games?This isn''t institutionalized ladder climbing at work, but individual power grabbing. And it''s a failure of leadership by the superior officer and gentleman in charge - Commander-in-Chief, President of the United States of America. Apparently, all he said to Ashcroft and Ridge was "I hope you two guys are synched up on this" or something to that effect.That''s not enough. He needs to hold regular meetings with both men, requiring all information from them and sharing between them, holding them accountable so they, in turn, go back to their organizations and "shake the information tree." But, of course, he won''t do that, since it was Clinton''s approach, and there is nothing more distasteful to a man who ran on the platform of "restoring dignity to the Oval Office" than to emulate any action of the man who disgraced it. ;quote:Original post by Michalson  Can the US hope to stop future attacks by Al-Qaeda or other terrorists if various departments are stilling serving only their own petty interests, withholding vital information from one another so it can be used for their exclusive political gain? Aren''t there some jobs that shouldn''t be subject to corperate ladder climbing games?   Sadly there aren''t.  This is not just an issue in the United States, but rather an issue of democracy.  The idealists who want to do the right thing are usually kept at the bottom because they are more effective there.  The politicians in any organization naturally rise to the top because they have the ability and inclination to do so simply for status.To properly eliminate this you need to establish a clear cut meritocracy.  Promotions based only on measurable performance, and subject to review by your immediate peers and supervisors. ;  How do you stop someone who is determined to attack you and does not have any fear of consequences?  There are an infinite number of ways to attack.  No amount of intelligence gathering will stop a determined attacker.  It could be that they are holding back information for their own purposes, or it could be that no one really knows what the hell is going to happen. ;quote:Original post by CodeMunkie   How do you stop someone who is determined to attack you and does not have any fear of consequences?  There are an infinite number of ways to attack.  No amount of intelligence gathering will stop a determined attacker.  It could be that they are holding back information for their own purposes, or it could be that no one really knows what the hell is going to happen.   Instead of attacking a country that wasn't a threat to the US (such as the illegal war in Iraq) the BILLIONS of dollars and manpower could have been used to set up a much better defence system against terrorists?   [edited by - Imperil on May 28, 2004 4:55:12 PM];  OK, and what does that "defense system" entail?  That is my point.  Short of shutting down the borders and declaring martial law, how do you stop someone who is determined to carry out an attack? EDIT: People are assuming that these agencies are all trying to one up each other.  My point is that maybe they just really don't have a clue what to do.  What would you do in their situation?   [edited by - CodeMunkie on May 28, 2004 5:05:39 PM];  Idunno, but attacking Iraq wasn''t it, that''s for pretty damn sure.  For starters, attacking countries actually affiliated with terrorists would help quite a lot.Besides, we both know that the Bushies wouldn''t actually mind a terrorist attack.  Look what the last one did for Bush''s popularity.  The man was widely thought a moron (to the point of having a TV show dedicated to mocking him called Bushed) and afterwards he was suddenly GI Joe. ;quote:Original post by CodeMunkie  EDIT: People are assuming that these agencies are all trying to one up each other.  My point is that maybe they just really don''t have a clue what to do.  What would you do in their situation?   Well, maybe i''m being simple here, but how about talking with each other and sharing infomation? As that seems to be what they arent doing and it could help plug a few gaps;quote:Original post by CodeMunkie   How do you stop someone who is determined to attack you and does not have any fear of consequences?  There are an infinite number of ways to attack.  No amount of intelligence gathering will stop a determined attacker.  It could be that they are holding back information for their own purposes, or it could be that no one really knows what the hell is going to happen.   Actually there are a lot of ways. None are absolute foolproof (though things are rarely foolproof in life), but they can work. For instance despite vague intelligence the 1999 al-qaeda attempt to blow up Los Angeles International Airport was foiled simply because there was a persistance in making sure all applicable arms of government where aware of the intelligence as it happened, and so they could better understand and interpret what was going on around them.An even better testiment is the record on domestic terrorism. With the exception of the Oklahoma city bombing basically every major terrorist attack by American white supremecists on American soil has been foiled (including the recent incident involving a cell that had put together a WMD to be unleashed on a government target). This kind of thing is happening on almost a daily basis, so frequently that it doesn't even make news beyond the local papers where it happened. Good intelligence and police work allows agencies like the FBI to observe and infiltrate these groups, where real, usable intelligence is gathered. This information not only helps them stop attacks by those directly under suspicion, but also aids in finding out about other potential attacks which can be stopped before they happen. Recently a figure of 18,000 Al-Qaeda members was released (out of a world of 1.1 billion Muslims). According to the FBI there are about 20,000 hardcore white supremacist terrorists in the US (though many are in jail, which is how they are listed in the "hardcore" column). Additionally the FBI quotes at least a  further 170,000-200,000 likely terrorists/sympathizers based on subscriptions to white supremacist periodicals. Traditional good police work and intelligence is used to stop white supremacists in the US. Blunt military force, political power games and misguided targetting are what is currently being used to stop Middle Eastern terrorists. Which threat are you currently most afraid of? 