SeaViews: Insights from the Gray
(formerly the _Rochester Rag_, formerly the _News
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
-- C.A. Beard
Anon ftp site
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
possibly more casualties then in any other single day in
nation's history. ABCNews ran a poll that claimed 2/3
of Americans agree that we should curtail our nation's
to make life safer.
Do you agree, and what freedoms would you
"Tuesday. September 11, 2001. A date which shall live
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
The next link is a video montage of the disaster. Some
images may be disturbing WTC
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
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
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
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
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
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
How can federal agencies "racially profile" "preferred
minorities," spy on them, and infiltrate their
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
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
the evil hegemon of history, the oppressor of women and
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 <email@example.com>
To: LANGER STEVEN C <sglanger@Oakland.edu>
Subject: Re: lastcall
LANGER STEVEN C wrote:
> 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
> "Yesterday, an act of profound terrorist cowardice
> possibly more casulties then in any other single day in
> nation's history. ABCNews ran a poll that claimed
> of Americans agree that we should curtail our nation's
> 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
for it we should go in and blow them away, The women at work
should nuke the Bastards. and put them out of their
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
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
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
take over an airline with armed passengers?
3. Doug Wilken speaks.
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:01:09 -0500
From: "Wilken, Doug (Aspen Research)"
Cc: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
>"Yesterday, an act of profound terrorist cowardice
>possibly more casulties then in any other single day in
>nation's history. ABCNews ran a poll that claimed
>of Americans agree that we should curtail our nation's
>to make life safer.
>Do you agree, and what freedoms would you
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
I am BAFFLED as to how removing our right to be armed, to
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
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
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:55:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: Charles Scripter <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: LANGER STEVEN C <sglanger@Oakland.edu>
Subject: Re: lastcall
> "Yesterday, an act of profound terrorist cowardice
> possibly more casulties then in any other single day in
> nation's history. ABCNews ran a poll that claimed
> of Americans agree that we should curtail our nation's
> to make life safer.
> Do you agree, and what freedoms would you
No, I disagree. I would barter no freedoms.
Already the tyrants in the US are talking about their
decrease liberty, ban cryptography, and so forth. Of
present no evidence that Crypto (or anything else) in any
contributed to this incident.
However, the solution to this terrorist problem is really
We have substantial evidence that Osama Bin Laden was
involved with a
number of terrorist attacks, and that the criminal Taliban
Afghanistan is protecting him. We declare war on
whatever concessions they will give to prevent an invasion,
assist Masood in removing this outlaw government (who gained
military coup), to reinstate the lawfully elected government
It doesn't matter if Bin Laden was involved in this
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
Pirates that we didn't ask if they were attacking our ships
being Pirates was sufficient cause.
The point is not retaliation, but to remove our enemies
make war on us (including destroying ALL of them, if
Then we trace the money to find their accomplices in
Sudan, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Palestine... and eliminate the
any nation found to be complicit in this state sponsored
well as punishing individuals found to be involved.
If they wish to act like animals, then they should be
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
Quote(s) of the month:
"Every face tells a story - every wrinkle is a
-- SGL 2001
Fix of the month:
"What military responses should be made to the World Trade
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
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.
1. Sept 11: The Pentagon was struck by a third commercial
airliner piloted by muslim highjackers. Casulties will
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
Israeli security issued urgent warning to CIA of
large-scale terror attacks
By David Wastell in
Washington and Philip Jacobson in Jerusalem
ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned
counterparts in the United States last month that
terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the
mainland were imminent.
The attacks on the World Trade Centre's twin towers and
Pentagon were humiliating blows to the intelligence
which failed to foresee them, and to the defence forces of
most powerful nation in the world, which failed to
The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with
Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent
Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the
existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to
preparing a big operation.
"They had no specific information about what was being
planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told
Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting
Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security
The CIA has said that it had no hard information that
have led to the prevention of the hijacking, but the FBI
believed that cells operating within America and totalling
least 50 terrorists were behind last week's devastating
hijacks; the names of new suspects are being added to
America's intelligence agencies are being widely blamed
their failure to predict the attacks, or anything like them,
for not discovering any of the terrorist cells before
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
the reputation of the CIA, which is under fire for its
An administration official in Washington said: "If this is
then the refusal to take it seriously will mean heads will
is quite credible that the CIA might not heed a Mossad
warning: it has a history of being overcautious about
For years, staff at the Pentagon joked that they worked
"Ground Zero", the spot at which an incoming nuclear
aimed at America's defences would explode. There is even
snack bar of that name in the central courtyard of the
five-sided building, America's most obvious military
This weekend, five days after that target was struck
devastating effect by a hijacked plane, the joking has
It is far from certain that any military commander would
had the courage to recommend shooting down a passenger
airliner, even in the unprecedented circumstances of
For three of the four airliners hijacked last week, however,
question did not even arise. Two pairs of combat
were scrambled into action but did not get near enough
shoot any of them down.
Norad, the command headquarters in Colorado responsible
for defending all of North America from air attack, was
of the first hijack at 8.38am and six minutes later two
fighter jets were ordered into the air from Otis airforce
on Cape Cod.
Before they could take off, however, the first hijacked
crashed into the World Trade Centre's north tower at
Six minutes later the two military jets were airborne, but
the second hijacked airliner hit the south tower shortly
9am they were still 70 miles from Manhattan.
The only successful action against the hijackers was
by passengers of the fourth airliner, whose heroic decision
fight back led to its crashing into the fields of
The reason lies in the strict distinction America draws
between civil and military power, combined with the fact
until last week nobody had confronted the possibility that
terrorist hijacker might turn kamikaze pilot.
Although Norad has its own radar system to track aircraft
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
For the same reason, the 20 or so American fighter
on permanent full alert in case of a suspect intruder,
deployed at half a dozen bases in the likeliest flightpaths
an attack from the former Soviet Union, several hundred
miles from New York or Washington DC.
All aircraft flying over American airspace are monitored
controlled by a network of 20 regional Federal Aviation
Authority air traffic control centres, backed up by
airport control towers. Military aircraft under Norad
intervene with domestic traffic only if called on for help
That is what happened on Tuesday, but in no case was
apparently enough time after the FAA's warning for
planes to reach the hijacked airliners.
More puzzling, there were 45 minutes between air traffic
controllers losing contact with the third airliner, which
from Dulles airport just outside Washington, and its crash
to the Pentagon.
At that point, however, the aircraft was still flying on
intended course westwards. It may not have been until
possibly after a passenger's mobile phone call to the
Department, that the civil authorities finally twigged what
It was not the military but civilian air traffic controllers
Washington's Reagan National Airport - tipped off by
colleagues at Dulles - who alerted the White House to
fact that an unauthorised jet was flying at full throttle
As shaken White House staff began a frantic evacuation,
aircraft banked, performed a 270 degree turn and sailed
lines of aghast drivers on expressways to crash
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
who are believed to have a battery of ground-to-air
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
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
Langley airforce base in Virginia just two minutes before
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
minutes from Washington when it crashed, might have been
successfully intercepted: air traffic controllers at a
centre in Nashua, New Hampshire, told a Boston newspaper
that at least one F-16 fighter was in hot pursuit, and
officials confirmed that the fighters already launched
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
were said to be "stunned" by the terrorists'
Within minutes of the attack American forces around the
world were put on one of their highest states of alert -
3, just two notches short of all-out war - and F-16s
Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington
A flotilla of warships was deployed along the east coast
bases in Virginia and Florida, with two aircraft-carriers to
protect the airspace around New York and Washington DC.
Off the west coast, a further 10 ships put to sea to take
station close to the shore.
Extra Awacs aerial reconnaissance aircraft were sent aloft
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
rest of the week, the unsettling roar of F-15 and F-16
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
better prepared, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary,
announced that fighters were being put on a 15-minute
alert at 26 bases nationwide.
There was anger among politicians at what many saw as
failure of the intelligence services, and some officials
Capitol Hill began canvassing support for a move to
George Tenet, the director of the Central Intelligence
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
America's intelligence services, "yet we learnt of every one
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
There are moves to address one severe shortcoming noted
by many critics: the CIA's reliance on technological
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
from recruiting as a paid informer anyone with a
record or who was guilty of human rights violations.
Woolsey, another former CIA director, said: "Inside bin
Laden's organisation there are only people who want to
human rights violators. If you don't recruit them then you
Sloppy CIA likes its home comforts
By Michael Smith, Defence
THE CIA has failed to infiltrate Osama bin Laden's
network because its men are not prepared to spend long
periods without sex or go into any area where they might
diarrhoea, according to a former intelligence officer.
In an article in the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly,
Marc Gerecht said he doubted that bin Laden or his men
would be "losing much sleep around the campfire" over
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
But claims by George Tenet, the CIA director, that the
was "picking it apart limb by limb" were a myth.
The CIA's counter-terrorism division was more interested
empire building than collecting intelligence on the
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
his life with shitty food and no women in the mountains
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
Hijacked passengers 'go down fighting'
By Ben Fenton in Washington
THE widow of a passenger who led an attack on hijackers,
preventing them from crashing an airliner into a
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
Shanksville, 80 miles from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
It is not clear how many of his fellow passengers joined
in attacking the hijackers but another passenger, Jeremy
Glick, 31, told his wife at her home near San Francisco
he was one of those who decided to "go down fighting".
When her husband rang her to alert the authorities about
hijacking, he told her that the hijackers had already
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
she had the phone cradled under her chin as she went
her chores of getting their two daughters, aged five and
ready for their day.
Mrs Burnett believes that, after she told her husband on
mobile phone about the World Trade Centre attacks, he
the other passengers decided to turn the tables on their
"We may never know exactly how many helped him or
what they did but I have no doubt that airplane was bound
some landmark and that whatever Tom did and, whatever
guys who helped him did, they saved many more lives,"
"And I'm so proud of him and so grateful." Mr Glick's
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
fate was to die, they should fight. At some point, Jeremy
his mobile phone down and simply went and did what he
Of the four deadly crashes on Tuesday, only Flight 93
no casualties on the ground. John Murtha, the local
congressman, said: "Somebody made a heroic effort to
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
bring the plane down here'."
The aircraft had left Newark, New Jersey, for San
about 8am local time on Tuesday but, as it approached
Cleveland, Ohio, it abruptly turned back east, losing