Brought to you by...



SeaViews: Insights from the Gray Havens 
August 2001

(formerly the _Rochester Rag_, formerly the _News from Detroit_)

Motto: The surest way to get a reputation for being a trouble maker these days is to go about repeating the very phrases that the Founders used in the struggle for independence.

-- C.A. Beard


email Steve
Anon ftp site
News Archives

Standard disclaimers apply. In addition, the author makes no guarantees concerning the grammatical accuracy of his writing. Submitted text files must be in raw or compressed (.Z, .gz or PK Zip) ASCII. Image files must be in raw or compressed (see above) GIF89 (or older).

On last month's Fix;

the answer to last month's Fix,
"Yesterday, an act of profound terrorist cowardice resulted in
possibly more casualties then in any other single day in this
nation's history. ABCNews ran a poll that claimed 2/3
of Americans agree that we should curtail our nation's freedoms
to make life safer.

 Do you agree, and what freedoms would you barter?"

"Tuesday. September 11, 2001. A date which shall live in infamy."

No, Franklin D. Roosevelt didn't say those words. He said "December 7, 1941" and was speaking about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. That is only one comparison that has been made as I write this on September 14 concerning the cowardly attack by terrorists on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon - possibly resulting in over 6000 dead and an unknown number of wounded.

Some say, this was like Peal Harbor in that it was a sneak attack. But the casualties there were less then 5000, and it was a nation's military attacking our military.

Some say, this was like the battle of Antietam in the Civil war - until now the single largest one day casualty event in this nation's history - but that battle was not a surprise.

Some say, this is no different then Tim McVeigh wiping out the Murrah Federal Building as revenge for FBI and ATF actions that killed Viki Weaver and her baby at Ruby Ridge or the death's of 24 children at Waco. Yet, McVeigh at least tried to target what he believed were the culpable parties -  he referred to the deaths of some kids in the Murrah building as unfortunate collateral damage. However, the World Trade Center killers have no pretense of trying to target only the US government, but rather they coldly killed thousands, and many not even Americans.

I say, this event is without parallel.

Some look for significance in the date 9-11. Aside from being the digits for calling an emergency, it is also the anniversary of the Camp David Accord signed by Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Israel's Menachem Begin under the watchful eye of then President Jimmy Carter. One could well expect that Osama Bin Laden, ex Egyptian royality, would be sensitive to this date.

The United States has been attacked by a band of militant muslims. The US Govt. has made no secret to the press that they believe that the perp is Osama Bin Laden, exiled member of the Egyptian Royal Family and well known Father-in-law  to the leader of the Taliban govt. in Afghanistan . But, I find it highly unlikely that this event was brought off by this one leader. I would expect at least the involvement of Saadam Hussein, Bin Laden, Kudafi and the Taliban and Jesbullah. Already, the identities of the 20 Arab highjackers (5 on each of the 4 planes that were hijacked and targeted on Tuesday) are known. Their rented cars contained Arabic language flight manuals of Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft. They also appear to have been in deep cover in the US, some living in FLorida for as much as 5 years.

President Bush Jr. has said they he considers this an act of war - and the US will respond in kind. Yet, not since the 3'rd president of this country declared war on the pirates of the Barbary Coast has our nation been at war with a non-nation. What does it mean to wage war on a diffuse enemy, occupying 12 or more countries (including this one) with no central military, political or economic structure? It means a long, murky, difficult struggle beside which Vietnam was child's play. Yet, the President and Congress - and the public - have declared that the perps will pay no matter the cost or how long it takes.

So, the US is at war, and the enemy is all around us. How will the war be fought? What will be our reponse? Already, ABC News has polling data that 2/3 of the US public will be happy to trade their freedom for security. What freedoms?

Fourth Amendment and Airline security:
No curb or gate check-in in. No sharp objects of any kind. All bags subject to hand search. In fact, all of these points could, at the discretion of the security people, have already been employed. Now they are mandatory. [Question: why can't Boeing make a bullet proof bulkhead between the flight deck and the passenger cabin?]

Forget probable cause, everything you own is now subject to search.

Privacy gone:
The FBI claims that Bin Laden, who used to use satellite phones until a CNN report alerted him that the US NSA could listen in,  switched to encrypted email. Because of that, the FBI has tripled its efforts in the past week to outfit Internet Service Providers with Carnivore listening units - and a meek ISP industry has complied. So already, without a Court order, all US email is being wiretapped.  Congress is going to retry to ban encryption, since Bin Laden supposedly used it to avoid eavesdropping. The terrorists are smiling.

First Amendment:
The Press, which was so keen to see the 2'nd Amendment unraveled, is now going to be asked to submit their own stories to Federal censors for review. For instance, the CNN story that revealed the existence of the FBI Carnivore and the NSA Echelon (which scans all radio and satellite communications), would have been scrapped.

Fifth Amendment:
If we are now acting as we would in time of war, expect the usual "due process" rules to be relaxed. I actually saw an NBC info-babe proudly proclaim that the FBI could hold people as material witnesses without charging them - indefinitely. And, expect the historical distinction between the CIA and the FBI (the former spied on non-US citizens, the latter on citizens) to be blurred as Congress will now permit the CIA to assist the FBI on domestic investigations - and the CIA cares not a whit for the Constitution.

Yes folks, it's a brave new world - and the governed are not just willing, but nay demanding to be stripped of the rights that hundreds of thousands of their fore-fathers gave their lives to defend - in exchange for security (they hope). But I have news. It won't work. By definition, terrorists will not hit the hardened targets. Tighten up the airports - they will drive car bombs onto ferries or into traffic tunnels. Protect the federal buildings - they will disperse poison gas or bio-weapons in the nation's football stadiums. Protect power plants, and they will poison municipal water supplies.

Some wag once said that evil is anti-life. I don't agree. By that argument every predator that eats its pray is evil. I think evil is anti-freedom - whether the source is a police state, or the terrorists that give the govt. an excuse to become a police state.  American rage hungers for a decisive, obliterating response. Basically - "Nuke the Bastards." But to give in to this would be to kill innocents, and bring us to the level of our barbaric enemy. America is better then this - and this is one of the reasons we are hated.

It would not be just for us to nuke the innocent, but neither can this assault go unanswered. Yet, I would not be eager to shed American blood for these miserable cowards in a protracted guerilla ground war that would make Vietnam look easy. There is a better way. The proper way to handle this is not to curtail our own freedoms, but rather to curtail the freedoms of those nations that harbor and abet world terrorists. I like that idea - and the UN probably would too. Basically, embargo every nation that harbors and assists terrorists until those govt.'s come to their senses and yield the criminals in their borders to justice. Wall them off from external food, medicine, energy, transport, all commerce, etc. until they submit or crumble under internal civil strife.The govt. of these nations have to be made to undertsand that the costs of supporting terrorism  will drag their economies back to the pre-industrial age.

The alternative is to have thousands of police or military undercover operatives, throughout the world and at home, ferret out the deep operatives that Bin Laden or others place. Since the US has not been able to keep it's own intelligence groups free of spies, it would seem the only thing that would be gained from this approach is the rise of a Soviet like paranoid state with people turning in their neighbors.

The next link is a video montage of the disaster. Some images may be disturbing  WTC montage

On another late issue:

Let's see, in August we went to my 20'th High School reunion, played host to my sister-in-law and her son, caught his cold the day after they left, moved into our new house three days later, trying to writes grants, fix dozens of things in the house and started some new research projects.

Guest Editorial:

Paul Craig Roberts

September 14, 2001

Can the United States win the terrorist war?

On a day filled with so much tragedy and sorrow as Sept. 11, it is too much to expect shocked political leaders
to show comprehension of such dramatic events in their public statements. But if we are to avoid more and
worse tragedies, we as a people, as well as our government officials, must understand our situation and how it
came about. Otherwise, the main impact of the war against terrorism will be the diminution of our own civil
liberties. Our government must get over its notion that terrorism is a crime to be dealt with legalistically through
law enforcement. Terrorists are conducting war in the only way militarily weak movements can against a

We have been at war without acknowledging it. We routinely bomb Iraq and are allied with a besieged Israel.
We support the Saudis and ensure the oil flows to the West. For these reasons and a number of others, we are
at odds with various Muslim groups. The war has now been brought home to us.

We can change our foreign policies and make peace with these groups, or we can reply to acts of war with
war, and not with law enforcement.

To conduct such a war would not be easy. We would have to search out and destroy terrorist camps and
infrastructure in foreign countries, and assassinate leaders and collaborators.

Much of this warfare would have to be conducted in the United States and Canada. In January 2000,
counter-terrorism expert Steven Emerson testified before the House Judiciary Committee that Canadian and
American immigration policies -- or lack thereof -- had made both countries havens for such terrorist groups as
the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the Lebanese Hizbullah, the Algerian Armed Islamic Group, the
Egyptian Al Gamat and, of course, Bin Laden's illusive Al Qaida group.

Can the United States identify and crack down on compartmentalized terrorist cells organized within
mainstream religious and civil-rights organizations? All of the terrorists are legally privileged "preferred
minorities," according to U.S. Department of Justice definitions and long-established civil rights enforcement.
How can federal agencies "racially profile" "preferred minorities," spy on them, and infiltrate their organizations
and support groups without suspending the civil rights laws as currently enforced?

A foolish immigration policy and unconstitutional racial quotas have allowed terrorists to establish "Fifth
Columns" throughout our own country.

The ability of the United States to conduct this war is hamstrung by other weaknesses. The morning after the
tragedy, The Wall Street Journal asked, "How could the CIA and FBI have no advance indication of so large
an event?"

It is easy to answer this question. Has the Journal forgotten Democratic Sen. Frank Church and the Church
Committee that emasculated the CIA in the mid 1970s? The CIA had some (absurd) plans to assassinate Fidel
Castro. The American political left was incensed and castrated the agency. The FBI, of course, is too busy
infiltrating "white supremacists" groups to undertake the politically incorrect action of spying on preferred
minorities. The political establishment gave the FBI fits for spying on Martin Luther King's communist
affiliations. Obviously, the FBI shied away from taking on another minority group.

Noting the connection between racial hatred and terrorism, The Wall Street Journal thanked those Arab
leaders who sent condolences but told them that they "need to understand that their societies carefully nurture
and inculcate resentments and hatreds against America."

The Journal could say the same thing about our own universities and much of our own culture. It is
commonplace -- indeed, obligatory -- in American universities to revile the white male of European descent as
the evil hegemon of history, the oppressor of women and minorities.

We can pretend that the demonization of American whites is nothing but the silly rantings of academics. But the
plain fact is that a guilt-ridden people are no match for fanatical opponents who believe in their cause.

The likely victims of our war against terrorism are the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.


1. Mom writes

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 16:24:22 -0500
From: CB langer <>
Subject: Re: lastcall


>   A reminder for letters for this this month's "News". Also,  in the
>   interest of maintaining a lighter tone, I'd also appreciate  any
>   humourous anecdotes from your respective locales.  Try to keep
>   them under 100 words each, if at all possible.
> "Yesterday, an act of profound terrorist cowardice resulted in
> possibly more casulties then in any other single day in this
> nation's history. ABCNews ran a poll that claimed 2/3
> of Americans agree that we should curtail our nation's freedoms
> to make life safer.

Steve: I am so happy that you are going to do a paper on this subject, I
will say this  that when they find whomever it was that is responsible
for it we should go in and blow them away, The women at work said we
should nuke the Bastards. and put them out of their missery.We are
hoping that your dad and Gordon get out their on Friday. Will keep you
up on this end by phone.All we can do is wait and see right now.


2. David Gay pens
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 10:59:38 -0500
Subject: RE: lastcall


We should restrict the freedoms of the citizens of countries that harbor

Increased security for airports and air travel in general does not have to
be a "Government" intrusion on our rights. It could be done by airlines

If we must surrender any of our rights granted by the Constitution it must
the second amendment. I no longer think it is appropriate to have a right to
own firearms. With the type of war we are now fighting, this can no longer
be a right, it must be a responsibility. How could a group of terrorists
take over an airline with armed passengers?

Uncomfortably Numb,
Dave Gay

3. Doug Wilken speaks.

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:01:09 -0500
From: "Wilken, Doug (Aspen Research)" <>
To: "''" <>
Cc: "''" <>
Subject: commentary


>"Yesterday, an act of profound terrorist cowardice resulted in
>possibly more casulties then in any other single day in this
>nation's history. ABCNews ran a poll that claimed 2/3
>of Americans agree that we should curtail our nation's freedoms
>to make life safer.

 >Do you agree, and what freedoms would you barter?"

Did ABCNews specify what freedoms are to be ceded?  Will ABCNews give up the
right to being a free press to help us fight terrorism?
To quote Ben Franklin (you're waiting for this one aren't you?):  "Those who
would sacrifice a little freedom for a little safety deserve neither."

I am BAFFLED as to how removing our right to be armed, to offer political
criticism, to lose the writ of habeus corpus, or losing the right to a trial
by jury could possibly make us safer from terrorists.

To quote Charles Scripter:  "A meteor is going to strike us!  Quick!  Run in
circles and beat your head on the wall!"

With this logic the London residents of 1944 should have given up their
hard-won English civil liberties in order to make themselves safe from the
V-2 rocket attacks.  However, these citizens performed their duties on the
home front in the teeth of these attacks (20,000+ dead) to do their parts in
keeping the front line troops supported in the quest to drive the Germans
out of northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands (which also put the V-2
rockets out of firing range of London).

Now It is difficult in the extreme to defend against an opponent willing and
happy to die and take you with them.  We are in a war and you win wars with
a powerful and sustained offense.  We must go after the operational bases of
these terrorists and the countries from which they operate.   I note that,
along with the US,  NATO, India and Russia are all taking a good long look
at Afghanistan as I write this.   As Kissinger said the other day, if you
are continually persuing and attacking the terrorists, the odds are good
that they must put their finite resources into survival rather than
attacking you.

Doug Wilken

4. Charles Scripter writes (and for those of you who don't know, Chuck and I lost a close friend - Rich Nowicki - a couple of weeks ago. I think Rich would agree with this).

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:55:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: Charles Scripter <>
Subject: Re: lastcall

> "Yesterday, an act of profound terrorist cowardice resulted in
> possibly more casulties then in any other single day in this
> nation's history. ABCNews ran a poll that claimed 2/3
> of Americans agree that we should curtail our nation's freedoms
> to make life safer.
>  Do you agree, and what freedoms would you barter?"

No, I disagree.  I would barter no freedoms.

Already the tyrants in the US are talking about their plans to
decrease liberty, ban cryptography, and so forth.  Of course, they
present no evidence that Crypto (or anything else) in any way
contributed to this incident.

However, the solution to this terrorist problem is really very simple.
We have substantial evidence that Osama Bin Laden was involved with a
number of terrorist attacks, and that the criminal Taliban militia in
Afghanistan is protecting him.  We declare war on Afghanistan, take
whatever concessions they will give to prevent an invasion, then
assist Masood in removing this outlaw government (who gained power via
military coup), to reinstate the lawfully elected government in exile.

It doesn't matter if Bin Laden was involved in this particular attack,
he was involved in others.  We know he is a terrorist, and is as good
a place to start as any.  Recall that when we destroyed the Barbary
Pirates that we didn't ask if they were attacking our ships -- their
being Pirates was sufficient cause.

The point is not retaliation, but to remove our enemies ability to
make war on us (including destroying ALL of them, if necessary).

Then we trace the money to find their accomplices in Saudi Arabia,
Sudan, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Palestine... and eliminate the ability of
any nation found to be complicit in this state sponsored terrorism, as
well as punishing individuals found to be involved.

If they wish to act like animals, then they should be killed like
dangerous animals.


5. David Dubey writes:

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:34:25 EDT
Subject: Re: lastcall

No, I don't agree.  I can't think of any freedoms to barter which would have
saved any of the planes (or people on the ground) and which would make any
sense long term.

It is extremely difficult to stop someone from killing themselves, and just
as hard to stop them from killing themselves when in a populated place.

- Dave

Quote(s) of the month:

"Every face tells a story - every wrinkle is a chapter."
-- SGL 2001

Fix of the month:

"What military responses should be made to the World Trade Center attack?"



1. Madison, Aug 22: With former Govr Tommy Thompson now a member of the Bush cabinet, the former Lt Govr  McCallum is trying out some new ideas. One is to provide all homeless people with a phone number and voice mail, to make it easier for social workers to inform them of their welfare payments and such. Tax payer response has been less then overwhelming.

New York;

1. NY City, 24 Aug: Terry Do, member of Earth First and a non-resident alien, tried to demonstrate his feelings about the use of landmines in warfare by atttempting to parachute and land on the torch of the Statue of LIberty. However, he misjudged the target and ended up tangled and hanging underneath the torch instead. Several NYC fire fighter spent their day getting him down so he could explain his beliefs to the NYPD.

2. NY CIty, 9 Sept: Two commercial airliners struck the world trade center towers about 1/2 hour apart. Tower one was struck at about 9 am and the second about 9:25. The planes were piloted by muslim highjackers. Casulties are expected to exceed 6000.


1. Sept 11, SE of Pittsburgh: A fourth commercial jet crashed down in the woods. It was in the midst of being highjacked to another target in the D.C. area when the passengers fought the highjackers, giving the pilot time to bring the jet down in an unpopulated area.

Washington D.C.

1. Sept 11: The Pentagon was struck by a third commercial airliner piloted by muslim highjackers. Casulties will approach 500.

Net News;

Not that I don't have total trust in the US press at the moment, but sometimes another viewpoint is good.

1. From the London Telegraph;$sessionid$52PMOXQAADW5PQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/09/16/ixhome.html

Israeli security issued urgent warning to CIA of large-scale terror attacks
       By David Wastell in Washington and Philip Jacobson in  Jerusalem
                  (Filed: 16/09/2001)

                  ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their
                  counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale
                  terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American
                  mainland were imminent.

                  The attacks on the World Trade Centre's twin towers and the
                  Pentagon were humiliating blows to the intelligence services,
                  which failed to foresee them, and to the defence forces of the
                  most powerful nation in the world, which failed to deflect

                  The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with
                  Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to
                  Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the
                  existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be
                  preparing a big operation.

                  "They had no specific information about what was being
                  planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the
                  Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting
                  Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security official.

                  The CIA has said that it had no hard information that would
                  have led to the prevention of the hijacking, but the FBI said it
                  believed that cells operating within America and totalling at
                  least 50 terrorists were behind last week's devastating
                  hijacks; the names of new suspects are being added to the
                  list daily.

                  America's intelligence agencies are being widely blamed for
                  their failure to predict the attacks, or anything like them, and
                  for not discovering any of the terrorist cells before the
                  hijackings on Tuesday. Some of those who took part had
                  lived in the US for months, or even years.

                  Evidence that a clear Israeli warning was delivered to
                  American authorities, but ignored, would be a further blow to
                  the reputation of the CIA, which is under fire for its failure last

                  An administration official in Washington said: "If this is true
                  then the refusal to take it seriously will mean heads will roll. It
                  is quite credible that the CIA might not heed a Mossad
                  warning: it has a history of being overcautious about Israeli

                  For years, staff at the Pentagon joked that they worked at
                  "Ground Zero", the spot at which an incoming nuclear missile
                  aimed at America's defences would explode. There is even a
                  snack bar of that name in the central courtyard of the
                  five-sided building, America's most obvious military bullseye.

                  This weekend, five days after that target was struck with
                  devastating effect by a hijacked plane, the joking has

                  It is far from certain that any military commander would have
                  had the courage to recommend shooting down a passenger
                  airliner, even in the unprecedented circumstances of last

                  For three of the four airliners hijacked last week, however, the
                  question did not even arise. Two pairs of combat fighters
                  were scrambled into action but did not get near enough to
                  shoot any of them down.

                  Norad, the command headquarters in Colorado responsible
                  for defending all of North America from air attack, was notified
                  of the first hijack at 8.38am and six minutes later two F-15
                  fighter jets were ordered into the air from Otis airforce base
                  on Cape Cod.

                  Before they could take off, however, the first hijacked airliner
                  crashed into the World Trade Centre's north tower at 8.46am.
                  Six minutes later the two military jets were airborne, but when
                  the second hijacked airliner hit the south tower shortly after
                  9am they were still 70 miles from Manhattan.

                  The only successful action against the hijackers was taken
                  by passengers of the fourth airliner, whose heroic decision to
                  fight back led to its crashing into the fields of Pennsylvania.

                  The reason lies in the strict distinction America draws
                  between civil and military power, combined with the fact that
                  until last week nobody had confronted the possibility that a
                  terrorist hijacker might turn kamikaze pilot.

                  Although Norad has its own radar system to track aircraft over
                  the US, its prime task is to watch for hostile aircraft
                  approaching America from outside. "We assume anything
                  originating in US airspace is friendly," said a spokesman.

                  For the same reason, the 20 or so American fighter planes
                  on permanent full alert in case of a suspect intruder, were
                  deployed at half a dozen bases in the likeliest flightpaths of
                  an attack from the former Soviet Union, several hundred
                  miles from New York or Washington DC.

                  All aircraft flying over American airspace are monitored and
                  controlled by a network of 20 regional Federal Aviation
                  Authority air traffic control centres, backed up by individual
                  airport control towers. Military aircraft under Norad control can
                  intervene with domestic traffic only if called on for help by their
                  civilian colleagues.

                  That is what happened on Tuesday, but in no case was there
                  apparently enough time after the FAA's warning for fighter
                  planes to reach the hijacked airliners.

                  More puzzling, there were 45 minutes between air traffic
                  controllers losing contact with the third airliner, which took off
                  from Dulles airport just outside Washington, and its crash on
                  to the Pentagon.

                  At that point, however, the aircraft was still flying on its
                  intended course westwards. It may not have been until later,
                  possibly after a passenger's mobile phone call to the Justice
                  Department, that the civil authorities finally twigged what was

                  It was not the military but civilian air traffic controllers at
                  Washington's Reagan National Airport - tipped off by their
                  colleagues at Dulles - who alerted the White House to the
                  fact that an unauthorised jet was flying at full throttle towards

                  As shaken White House staff began a frantic evacuation, the
                  aircraft banked, performed a 270 degree turn and sailed past
                  lines of aghast drivers on expressways to crash explosively
                  into the west side of the Pentagon.

                  If the airliner had approached much nearer to the White
                  House it might have been shot down by the Secret Service,
                  who are believed to have a battery of ground-to-air Stinger
                  missiles ready to defend the president's home.

                  The Pentagon is not similarly defended. "We are an open
                  society," said a military official. "We don't have soldiers
                  positioned on the White House lawn and we don't have the
                  Pentagon ringed with bunkers and tanks."

                  It emerged last night that two F-16 fighters took off from
                  Langley airforce base in Virginia just two minutes before the
                  American Airlines Boeing 767 crashed into the Pentagon,
                  again too late to have a chance of intercepting.

                  Only the fourth hijacked airliner, which was less than 30
                  minutes from Washington when it crashed, might have been
                  successfully intercepted: air traffic controllers at a regional
                  centre in Nashua, New Hampshire, told a Boston newspaper
                  that at least one F-16 fighter was in hot pursuit, and defence
                  officials confirmed that the fighters already launched from
                  Langley were on their way to intercept the flight when
                  passengers apparently took matters into their own hands.

                  Deep inside the Pentagon, in the hardened bunkers of the
                  National Military Joint Intelligence Centre, senior officials
                  were said to be "stunned" by the terrorists' achievement.

                  Within minutes of the attack American forces around the
                  world were put on one of their highest states of alert - Defcon
                  3, just two notches short of all-out war - and F-16s from
                  Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC.

                  A flotilla of warships was deployed along the east coast from
                  bases in Virginia and Florida, with two aircraft-carriers to help
                  protect the airspace around New York and Washington DC.
                  Off the west coast, a further 10 ships put to sea to take up
                  station close to the shore.

                  Extra Awacs aerial reconnaissance aircraft were sent aloft to
                  ensure that nothing other than military aircraft flew in
                  American airspace - a home-grown version of the "no-fly
                  zones" enforced for many years over Iraq. For much of the
                  rest of the week, the unsettling roar of F-15 and F-16 fighters
                  patrolling the skies high above America's biggest cities
                  replaced the usual rumble of commercial airliners.

                  On Friday, in a tacit admission that America must in future be
                  better prepared, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary,
                  announced that fighters were being put on a 15-minute "strip"
                  alert at 26 bases nationwide.

                  There was anger among politicians at what many saw as the
                  failure of the intelligence services, and some officials on
                  Capitol Hill began canvassing support for a move to force
                  George Tenet, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency,
                  originally appointed by Clinton, to step aside.

                  James Traficant, a Democratic congressman from
                  Pennsylvania, said that for years Congress had poured
                  billions of dollars of largely unscrutinised funding into
                  America's intelligence services, "yet we learnt of every one of
                  these tragedies from Fox News and CNN"- two television
                  channels. Senator Richard Shelby, a Republican member of
                  the Senate intelligence committee, said it was "a failure of
                  great dimension".

                  There are moves to address one severe shortcoming noted
                  by many critics: the CIA's reliance on technological rather
                  than "human" means to gather information, and its
                  weakness as a means of finding out what Osama bin Laden
                  is up to.

                  During the Clinton administration, Congress banned the CIA
                  from recruiting as a paid informer anyone with a criminal
                  record or who was guilty of human rights violations. James
                  Woolsey, another former CIA director, said: "Inside bin
                  Laden's organisation there are only people who want to be
                  human rights violators. If you don't recruit them then you don't
                  recruit anyone."


Sloppy CIA likes its home comforts
    By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
                  (Filed: 14/09/2001)

                  THE CIA has failed to infiltrate Osama bin Laden's terrorist
                  network because its men are not prepared to spend long
                  periods without sex or go into any area where they might get
                  diarrhoea, according to a former intelligence officer.

                  In an article in the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Reuel
                  Marc Gerecht said he doubted that bin Laden or his men
                  would be "losing much sleep around the campfire" over the
                  CIA's efforts to target them.

                  The agency had spent tens of millions of pounds on
                  operations against bin Laden's Al'Qaeda network, he said.
                  But claims by George Tenet, the CIA director, that the agency
                  was "picking it apart limb by limb" were a myth.

                  The CIA's counter-terrorism division was more interested in
                  empire building than collecting intelligence on the ground.

                  He quoted one senior officer as saying that the agency
                  "probably doesn't have a single truly qualified
                  Arabic-speaking officer of Middle Eastern background who
                  can play a believable Muslim fundamentalist".

                  Nor were there any CIA officers prepared to "spend years of
                  his life with shitty food and no women in the mountains of
                  Afghanistan. Most case officers live in the suburbs of

                  He added: "Unless one of bin Laden's foot soldiers walks
                  through the door of a US consulate or embassy, the odds
                  that a CIA counter-terrorist officer will ever see one are
                  extremely poor."


Hijacked passengers 'go down fighting'
 By Ben Fenton in Washington
                  (Filed: 14/09/2001)

                  THE widow of a passenger who led an attack on hijackers,
                  preventing them from crashing an airliner into a Washington
                  landmark, spoke yesterday of her pride in her husband.

                  Deena Burnett said she spoke to her husband Thomas, 38,
                  four times as he called her on his mobile telephone from
                  United Airlines Flight 93 before it plunged into a field at
                  Shanksville, 80 miles from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

                  It is not clear how many of his fellow passengers joined him
                  in attacking the hijackers but another passenger, Jeremy
                  Glick, 31, told his wife at her home near San Francisco that
                  he was one of those who decided to "go down fighting".

                  When her husband rang her to alert the authorities about his
                  hijacking, he told her that the hijackers had already "knifed a
                  guy" and had told passengers they had a bomb on board.
                  Then he rang off.

                  There were three further short conversations with her
                  husband before he decided on his plan of action. She said
                  she had the phone cradled under her chin as she went about
                  her chores of getting their two daughters, aged five and three,
                  ready for their day.

                  Mrs Burnett believes that, after she told her husband on his
                  mobile phone about the World Trade Centre attacks, he and
                  the other passengers decided to turn the tables on their

                  "We may never know exactly how many helped him or exactly
                  what they did but I have no doubt that airplane was bound for
                  some landmark and that whatever Tom did and, whatever the
                  guys who helped him did, they saved many more lives," she

                  "And I'm so proud of him and so grateful." Mr Glick's uncle,
                  Tom Crowley, said his nephew and others among the 45 on
                  board must have decided they would go down fighting.

                  "Jeremy and the people around them found out about the
                  flights into the World Trade Centre and decided that, if their
                  fate was to die, they should fight. At some point, Jeremy put
                  his mobile phone down and simply went and did what he
                  could do."

                  Of the four deadly crashes on Tuesday, only Flight 93 caused
                  no casualties on the ground. John Murtha, the local
                  congressman, said: "Somebody made a heroic effort to keep
                  the plane from hitting a populated area.

                  "I would conclude there was a struggle and a heroic
                  individual decided 'I'm going to die anyway so I might as well
                  bring the plane down here'."

                  The aircraft had left Newark, New Jersey, for San Francisco
                  about 8am local time on Tuesday but, as it approached
                  Cleveland, Ohio, it abruptly turned back east, losing altitude,
                  towards Washington.