Terrorism

The troubles we’ve seen

9/11 thoughts from Mark Crispin Miller, David Thomson, Richard Stallman and more.

9/11 changed everything? Or 9/11 changed nothing? Everyone has an opinion. Here are a few assembled by Salon’s staff.

David Thomson, film critic and author of “A Biographical Dictionary of Film,” “Rosebud: The Story of Orson Welles” and “In Nevada”:

Twenty-five very bad things that have happened to us:

1. The institution known as slavery.
2. The excessive use of social engineering in the first 50 years of the USSR.
3. The career of Adolf Hitler.
4. The more or less continual state of famine in many parts of Africa.
5. HIV.
6. The ministrations of the Roman Catholic Church.
7. Disneyfication.
8. Being in Hiroshima or Nagasaki or Dresden on the wrong mornings so that an example might be made.
9. The first day on the Somme, 1916.
10. The other days there.
11. The prolonged events in Indo-China that served to delay the formation of a single, independent Vietnamese state.
12. The Black Death.
13. Photography in all its forms.
14. The Spanish Inquisition.
15. The Spanish Civil War.
16. The Spanish Flu.
17. The Dark Ages.
18. Global warming.
19. Oct. 31 1971: Tidal wave at Orissa, east India, kills 15,000.
20. Other events like those of No. 19 that we have forgotten or never heard of.
21. The various attempts to preserve order in China before 1949.
22. And after 1949.
23. The collective failure of U.S. intelligence before Sept. 11, 2001.
24. The events of Sept. 11, 2001.
25. The ball going through Billy Buckner’s legs.

So, get a grip, New York, and make up your mind whether you’re one tough city, or just the center of attention.

Janice Crouse, executive director, Beverly LaHaye Institute in Washington, and Bush administration delegate to the U.N. Children’s Summit:

9/11 profoundly changed people’s attitudes toward America and made us much more patriotic, much more willing to look foolish in terms of getting teary-eyed when we hear “God Bless America” and in doing the kinds of things that patriotic Americans typically do. On the other hand, I think in a strange kind of way it made us more blasi. We looked terror in the face and said, yes, it was a tragic event, but tragic events happen and there’s nothing we can do and life goes on. We’ve continued on in our self-centeredness and we have not really altered our basic priorities and values in any kind of significant way.

We are superficially spiritual, but Barna Research reports that church attendance and other religious observances are not significantly changed. The bottom line is that while we say that we are more spiritual and we say it has affected us very deeply, it does not work itself out in our lifestyle choices and our values.

I expected us to be much more outraged and to overwhelmingly say this will not stand, and I see us backing away from a willingness to endure personal discomfort or inconveniences in terms of airport searches, being willing to say, “Yes, we must profile,” and in terms of a commitment to military action.

Mark Crispin Miller, professor of media ecology, New York University Department of Culture and Communication:

Just after 9/11, I was one of those who thought, and said out loud, that the catastrophe might knock some sense into the gibbering “culture” of the U.S. media. Now there would be no more prime-time seminars about the likely cruising style of Gary Condit, no more shark watches, and quite a lot more coverage of, and talk about, the wider world. (The term “Afghanistan” had long been used inside the TV news biz as a handy term for all those faraway and overcomplicated stories that the advertisers didn’t want to see.) And I believed that there would be a lot less dumbbell irony, a lot less potty comedy, and a lot less homicidal stand-up from the right. In short, I thought that Adam Sandler was all through, and that Ann Coulter would soon be forgotten, if not gone, and that the news would finally try to tell us some things that a free and democratic people needs to know.

Boy, was I wrong. Everwhere you look, Ann Coulter’s up there on her broomstick, cracking manic jokes about mass murder, and Adam Sandler’s said to be involved in seven movies soon to flood the multiplexes. Now I am old and wise enough to know that such bad acts are always with us, so I’m only disappointed — and, on cool reflection, not surprised — that there isn’t more stuff out there like “The Simpsons,” “The Sopranos,” “Lovely & Amazing” or Wilco. On the other hand, I find that I am absolutely flabbergasted at the many jumbo helpings of outright crapola that our “free press” has been laying out for us day after day since 9/11. While foreign journalists routinely tell their readers and/or viewers what’s going on — inside Afghanistan, Iraq, D.C. and all throughout this land of our — our journalists don’t tell us anything.

They haven’t bothered to report, for instance, that the war against Iraq has already begun. Last week the U.S. and U.K. together hit the largest air-defense installation in western Iraq — a mission that involved 100 jets. At the same time, “we” began the largest military buildup in that region since the start of Operation Desert Shield 12 years ago. Neither story was reported by a single mainstream news source in this country. “Despite the assurances of President George Bush and Tony Blair that ‘no decisions’ had been made on how to deal with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, compelling evidence has emerged in the past week that the U.S. has begun a military build-up not seen since the last Gulf war,” reported the Observer, which, along with the Daily Telegraph, the Independent and, in Canada, the National Post, among other foreign press outlets, has duly covered what should be big news, but isn’t news at all, in these United States, whose soldiers — and civilians — are the ones who stand to suffer once this war begins….

What has happened to the press in the United States? Certainly it wasn’t anything to brag about 10, 15, 20 years ago, but now its irresponsibility is simply staggering. Why? A proper answer to that question has to be complex, entailing many factors — corporate concentration; radical deregulation under Reagan, Bush and Clinton; TV’s touchy-feely influence; the laziness and (yes) conservatism of a corporate press corps grossly overpaid; the fervent, brilliant rightist propaganda drive against “the liberal media”; and so on. While all such factors surely have a lot do with it, however, 9/11 clearly made a very sudden difference, turning a bad situation even worse.

Although the press was always marvellously soft on Bush — revelling in his ignorance, saying not a word about his many scandals past, approving his bald theft of the election — after 9/11 such mere protectiveness mutated swiftly into a demented caesarism, such as one would once have found among the Soviets, or as one finds today in places like Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cuba (and Iraq) … Such rapturous delusion was a sign of the horrific times just after 9/11, and therefore would have been forgivable as a mere human failing — if the reporters had just knocked it off once everyone recovered, more or less, from that first shock.

The fact that they did not, but kept on treating this Bush as a god — even after he began descending in the polls, and notwithstanding the abundant evidence that he was not at all divine but barely human — makes it quite clear that the press was transformed big-time by the shock of 9/11. Although the evidence of our own senses tells us otherwise — after all, he’s right there on TV — the press accounts routinely fix his grammar (he said “gooder” several times at one recent event, but that weird goof was not in any transcript), and sometimes even call him “a six-footer,” which is very clearly not the case. Such frank cosmetic touches are, to put it mildly, un-American, more reminiscent of the cult of Stalin than of anything in U.S. journalistic history.

And yet such frank improvements of the president’s own voice and person are not half as troubling as the journalists’ refusal to stay with those major stories that pertain directly to the ugly fix that we are in today: Dick Cheney’s criminal involvement in the arming of Iraq (against which brutal nation he now urges us to war); John Ashcroft’s kid-gloves treatment of the robber barons at Enron — and that firm’s many links to the administration (a scandal from which Gulf War II might help distract the rest of us); the abject failure of the “war on terrorism,” as bin Laden walks (or sits) at liberty, along with most of the al-Qaida leadership (a big distraction would help there); and, speaking of the bombing of Afghanistan, the ruinous effect of that impulsive move on our attempts to nab the terrorists…

And then there’s 9/11 itself — the day that knocked the U.S. press clean out of its collective mind, and into full-time propaganda mode for this war-hungry president. Nothing could more clearly demonstrate that day’s disastrous impact on the pundits and reporters than their mawkish exploitation of this anniversary. As they repackage the catastrophe as tearful patriotic superspectacle, the journalists persist in not reporting any aspect of the story that might somehow spoil the solemn mood of awesome ceremonial that both the White House and the media’s parent companies have planned for us. And so George W. Bush will come and flex his gravitas before the cameras, with certain “heroes of 9/11″ at his side — and most of those Americans who watch won’t even know, or won’t recall, that this same president, abetted by Dick Cheney, has done everything he can to thwart a full inquiry into how and why that worst of crimes occurred.

Such obstruction is, at best, completely indefensible, since it prevents our grasping what occurred, and how we might best keep such things from happening again. At worst, it indicates that Bush and Cheney must be hiding something — something that we have the right to know. In any case, their interference ought to be sufficient grounds for their immediate impeachment; and yet our journalists have been so dazed by 9/11 that they have failed to call for a commission looking into it — an investigative body of the sort that we have had before, and that the government of any normal country would have organized at once. Overeager, even now, to help prop up this failing president (and, of course, to keep their ratings high), they display no interest in enlightening us, but are intent on dunking all of us in an immense “emotional bath” (a phrase Tom Brokaw used not long ago, approvingly). They seem to think that such submersion is a patriotic act — but nothing could be further from the truth.

Jaron Lanier, computer scientist, musician and author who coined the term “virtual reality”:

I think we’ve crossed an inevitable threshold. A lot of people had an intuition before 9/11 that said small numbers of people can do great harm because of tech advancement. This requires an adjustment but we haven’t decided which way to go.

Were heading in one of two directions. We either head toward a society like that of the Dutch, who, by living behind dikes, recognize that they’re vulnerable to attack. There, the response has been to create a society with zero privacy — where you see people naked in their window — but a society that’s also tolerant and industrious. That’s one formula, which is the one I’ve come to believe is the desirable one, even though it requires dramatic changes in the way we view privacy and other seeming entitlements.

The other direction is toward centralized control — the panopticon sort of thing, which is what the government is favoring. And I think, so far, what we’re choosing is different in different parts of the country. I’m in the San Francisco Bay Area right now and I don’t see much change. But New York is vastly different. When I’m in New York, I always greet and thank police on duty because they’re in harm’s way for me. It’s a closer-knit but less private existence.

When I think of the police in Los Angeles, where I got in trouble for greeting them, or in San Francisco, I’ve noticed that it’s different. The police are more hostile. Those two experiences in New York and California reflect the changes I was talking about. If police and the public actually like and understand each other and have a rapport, that connection can make people more secure. We’ve seen that within New York City, but I don’t think we see it elsewhere.

One thing that hasn’t changed, which stuns me and makes me very angry, is that this should have been an opportunity to fund research and development — to make progress on new forms of transportation and energy. It’s a great, great shame that it hasn’t been treated that way, because fundamentally, this oil thing is limited. In the grand scheme of people and energy, whatever happens in Iraq is only a tactical aside.

Russell Morse, 21-year-old staff writer at Youth Outlook and a student at San Francisco State University:

A year ago, I was ready to fight. If that meant going away to war, I was down. If it meant carrying a banner and burning an effigy of G.W. Bush, that was cool, too. I just wanted to belong to something, believe in something, anything.

I wrote a piece for Salon in which I detailed my readiness to wave a flag, put on a uniform, turn a blind eye to a blind war, just so I could stop being apathetic. I believed that there were many other young people just like me, eager to be a part of a movement similar to those that defined the generations that came before us.

All through my teens I had been hungry for some kind of national youth movement, and all I got was school shootings. In the morning hours of Sept. 12, I saw promise: I saw an end to this plague of teenage apathy. I saw patriotism. I saw young people gladly going off to fight. I even saw a new campus anti-war movement.

But then patriotism got played out. The stars and stripes became the Razor Scooter of 2001 — it went from mandatory accessory of the young and free to garage sale fare in the click of a remote. The attacks were reduced to mere metaphor fodder for hip-hop lyrics. Even those young people who stood up to assume the role of anti-hero faded. John Walker copped a plea. Charlie Bishop’s mom blamed her son’s suicidal protest action on acne medication. And the Israeli-Palestinian conflict trumped America’s War on Terrorism as the chic campus movement. “Free Palestine” replaced “Stop The War” as must-have Berkeley backpack sticker. And the brief, uneasy “truce” between young people and the police collapsed. The only waves the cops get now are one-fingered.

The focus of my 9/11 response piece was the idea that young men like me were ready to go to war. But my foresight was embarrassingly flawed. A friend of mine went AWOL from the Navy the day after 9/11, fearing he would be sent off to fight. In a moment too ironic to be dubbed ironic, he told me, “Go to war? I didn’t sign up for that.” So now the Army is giving away promotional first-person shooter video games as a recruitment tool. And starting this school year, high schools will be required to give up names, ages and addresses of all male students to the Selective Service in case of a draft. If the schools don’t comply, they’re faced with losing federal funding.

Apparently, kids didn’t run out to register in the patriotic drunk of September. And they sure haven’t done it in the eleven-month hangover since then. Meanwhile, my enthusiasm for a political movement has faded. I just wanna hear stories now, not rhetoric. Patriot, yes. War hawk, no. I thought I had something to care about after 911. Joining the anti-war movement. Join the army, whatever — something bigger. Anything bigger. It looks now as if that something bigger is spiritual. Every week, I meet another young person seeking a spiritual answer to what I thought was a political question. Prayer and reflection has trumped sign and rifle toting.

Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Movement and responsible for launching the development that led to the GNU/Linux operating system:

On Sept. 11, I was in Washington for a panel in Crystal City, where I was supposed to speak that afternoon about the censorship threat of the proposed Hague treaty. Before I set out, another panel participant phoned me, saying the meeting had been canceled due to an attack on the Pentagon nearby. The government had told its workers to go home, and shut down the subway so they couldn’t.

I walked to the EPIC office, and there the real danger dawned on me. Our freedom was the next target! Bush and the FBI would seize this excuse to advance their patient plans for surveillance and arbitrary rule. Marc Rotenberg and I began writing an Op-Ed piece, warning Americans to resist attacking their own civil liberties if Osama bin Laden were out of reach. But no newspaper would publish it.

Events justified our fears. When our unelected president imprisoned people without trial, he abolished the most basic of legal rights. A few judges had the courage to reject this tyranny, but appeals courts reversed them. Osama bin Laden might wish to destroy America, but constrained as he is to acting in secret, he cannot do it. Bush may really do it. Americans, if you love your country, don’t be distracted from the enemy within!

Dr. James J. Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute:

When I went over and spoke to the Arab League, I wanted them to know, and it was the same point I made in the weeks that followed Sept. 11, it was our country that was attacked. It was our people who died. It was Arab Americans who were part of the rescue effort. I have my own weekly television show, live to the Middle East every Friday, and my guests this week are a number of Arab American police officers in New York and firemen in Virginia to talk about being part of the rescue effort. This was as much a tragedy for us as anybody else in America. And that’s how we will view it.

[Television producers] asked me if I wanted to fly up to New York on the 11th and I said no, I’m not going to fly on the 11th. I couldn’t go into an airport on that day. Not because I’m afraid, but just because it does not seem right to me. In that sense I think I’m reacting like a lot of other people are going to react. The double problem, if there was any double problem for us, was that as we were watching the attack, as we were being traumatized by it, and hurt by it like everybody else, I got a death threat. And they kept coming so I had to be looking over my shoulder while I was watching the television. But the guy who threatened my life and threatened to kill me and my family on the 12th just got sentenced to a prison term in Boston last week. And that’s the third part of the story for me; we were protected. And so it was a time of very complex emotions, it was kind of a roller coaster if you will. That sense of feeling vulnerable in a number of different ways, and at the same time feeling protected. That will be with us for a long time.

Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the conference of presidents of major american jewish organizations:

Much has changed. The way we view the world, the rules by which we judge events, the sense of vulnerability in our country, the priorities that the war on terrorism must take. It also reminded all of us what’s really important in life and makes us reconsider our priorities. For Jews, like all Americans, it had a broad impact, [but] because of the high toll of Jews who were killed and the nature of the enemy and their primary target, there’s a specific added dimension. There’s absolutely no doubt that it has brought America and Israel closer together. It has made many Americans understand what Israel has been dealing with all these days.

Lucy Kaplansky, a folk singer in Greenwhich Village:

I think for most of us, people who were not directly affected by the attacks and didn’t lose a loved one, things have largely gotten back to normal. In the first couple months everybody was not only incredibly sad but scared. I know I was really scared. Like, this is going to happen again and I better watch out. And I was watching people on the subway wondering, “Is he a terrorist?” But I have to say after a few months it started to feel like things were back to normal. One of the things that was so palpable right after the attacks was the incredible sense of community that came up in the city. People just felt like they were connected with each other. You could just see it in each others’ eyes. People were so helpful and kind. And now it’s just sort of back to, we’re all just kind of New Yorkers. Back to normal. It is a shame that sense of community got put away. But I think that’s human nature. I don’t know that it could have really persisted in our normal world. I’ve never experienced anything like that. Everybody just felt a bond and I wish that could have stayed with us.

I’ve lived in New York City for 24 years. The first few years I was here it was very much a love/hate relationship. I was very poor. I was living in the East Village, which back then was no fun, lots of drug dealers. And I thought, what am I doing here? But then I met my husband in 1985 and I never ever thought about leaving after that. And at this point it is a love affair. I just love this city so much. And I think I love it even more after the attacks. I was scared, scared that I’d get killed in an attack. But I think I just really felt that much more connected and proud to be a New Yorker.

Senate Democrats heroically fund TSA

Democrats score the dumbest political victory of 2012

(Credit: Reuters/Frank Polich)

On Tuesday, a Senate Appropriations Committee vote effectively highlighted everything that is stupid about politics.

The Transportation Security Administration, a universally loathed government agency, is facing a shortfall, despite its more than $8 billion budget. Instead of having a debate over what effective airport security might actually look like and how much should reasonably be spent on the honestly rare threat of commercial-air-travel-based terrorism, there was a debate over how best to come up with the money needed for all the radioactive naked picture machines and bomb-sniffing dogs. The Democrats suggested passing on the cost of ineffective, cumbersome and intrusive security theater to citizens, via higher fees on airfares. The Republicans, even more predictably, suggested cutting spending that directly helps poor people to ensure there is enough to spend on stopping imaginary future 9/11s.

The newspaper account of the debate in The Hill just reinforced the Republican spin, highlighting the Democrats’ decision to make people spend more money on the hated TSA and downplaying the actual existing Republican alternative to the proposal, which was not “spend less on the hated TSA” but rather “raise money for the hated TSA by slashing needed aid to states.” The Democrats won, or “won,” and now they will earn the fruits of that victory: well-deserved scorn from everyone. And Ben Nelson (D-Troll Town) voted with the Republicans. (Though surely having users pay the fees for supposedly necessary security measures is perfectly conservative, isn’t it? Am I missing something here? I mean besides the fact that the two sides in this debate weren’t actually “liberal” and “conservative” but rather “people who want to come up with a way of paying for the oppressive and useless national security state” versus “people who want there to be an oppressive national security state but hate government spending on feeding and sheltering impoverished people.”)

I don’t know of anyone not employed by the TSA or some other arm of Homeland Security that believes the TSA does a good job and deserves its massive budget, but everyone in Washington apparently feels differently (and is terrified of being blamed for “voting to cut TSA funding” if there is another terrifying and deadly underwear bomber, of course). This is why everyone hates politics and Congress and Washington. This and Iraq. And the drug war.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Police arrest artist setting up ‘I Love NY’ work

The installation included a plastic bag with a battery inside of it, hanging from a tree

(Credit: http://tmiyakawadesign.com/)

NEW YORK (AP) — An artist who was setting up an “I Love New York”-themed public art display in Brooklyn was arrested after the wired contraption was mistaken for an explosive device.

Takeshi Miyakawa, a visual artist and furniture designer, was arrested Saturday after placing the installation in two separate areas of the same New York City neighborhood. His lawyer and employer both called the arrest a misunderstanding.

The first apparatus was found Friday morning after a caller reported a suspicious package to police. It consisted of a plastic bag that contained a battery and was suspended from a metal rod attached to a tree. The bag, which had the classic “I Love New York” logo printed on it, was connected by a wire to a plastic box that contained more wires.

The area was evacuated for two hours until a bomb squad determined that the device was not dangerous.

At about 2 a.m. Saturday, a police officer discovered Miyakawa on a ladder not far from where the first contraption was found. Police said he was tying a similar “I Love New York” bag to a public lamp post.

Miyakawa was charged with two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment, two counts of placing a false bomb or hazardous substance in the first degree, two counts of placing a false bomb or hazardous substance in the second degree, two counts of second-degree reckless endangerment and two counts of second-degree criminal nuisance.

A judge ordered him held pending a psychiatric evaluation. His lawyer, Deborah J. Blum, said Monday that she is filing for emergency relief to have Miyakawa released. A court date was set for June 21 to review the results of the evaluation.

“He’s still being held,” Blum said Monday. “I believe that it was a gross misunderstanding and other than that I don’t have any other comment.”

Miyakawa, who was born in Tokyo and is about 50 years old, has worked for a New York-based architect Rafael Vinoly for the last 20 years and also has an independent design practice.

Vinoly’s firm released a statement Monday praising Miyakawa for his “extraordinary brand of professionalism” and said he has been a mentor to generations of young architects.

“Takeshi is a fabulous human being and a person of extraordinary talent,” Vinoly said. “We hope this misunderstanding is cleared up as quickly as possible.”

New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman said in a statement that the charges sounded “like a wild overreaction.”

“It’s hard to understand why a light-up bag in a tree would be treated as an attempted terrorist act unless there’s more to the story than has been reported in the press thus far,” she said.

In 2007, an artist touched off a terror scare in Boston by placing electronic devices around the city as part of a marketing stunt for Cartoon Network. The city closed bridges, roads and public transit before authorities realized the signs were not bombs.

On an average day, the NYPD receives nearly 100 reports of a suspicious package. Last year, there were more than 4,000 such reports. The number generally rises following any word of terror threats in New York and around the world.

Continue Reading Close

Behind the underwear bomb

The latest airplane terror plot wouldn't have been foiled without airport security -- but not the kind we all know

Travelers line up at a TSA checkpoint at Los Angeles International Airport. (Credit: Reuters/Danny Moloshok)

Another deadly plot taken down in the planning stages. This time, thanks to the work of a CIA double agent, officials were able to infiltrate a Yemen-based al-Qaida plot to destroy a U.S.-bound jetliner using a nearly undetectable underwear bomb.The moral of the story: Airport security works!Am I being facetious?  Not necessarily.  It depends on your definition of airport security.

In my mind, the key to keeping airplanes safe is, and always has been, stopping acts of sabotage while they are still in the planning stages. Here in the age of the TSA checkpoint, with its toothpaste confiscations and obsession with pointy objects, we tend not to think this way, preoccupied instead with a kind of airport Kabuki — the tedious, fanatical screening of passengers and their carry-ons. Real airport security takes place offstage, as it were. It is the job of the folks at the CIA and the FBI, working together with foreign authorities. And while TSA has an important role here too, we can do without the spectacle of airport guards rifling through innocent people’s bags in a pathological hunt for what are effectively harmless items.

The concourse checkpoint needs to be there.  Just the same, chances are good that once an adversary has made it to the airport, he or she has engineered a way to outwit the system.  And spend as we might, there will always be a way to outwit the system.  ”Even if our technology is good enough to spot it,” said California Rep. Adam Schiff, commenting on the news of the latest underwear plot, “technology is still in human hands and we are inherently fallible.”

That’s one of the smartest things I’ve heard a politician utter in some time.

Getting a handle on this takes us all the way back to Sept. 11, 2001, the day that everything, and yet really nothing, changed.  I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: Conventional wisdom holds that the 19 hijackers exploited a weakness in airport security by smuggling box cutters onto four Boeing jetliners. But conventional wisdom is wrong. What the men actually exploited was a weakness in our mind-set — a set of presumptions based on the decades-long track record of hijackings and how they were expected to unfold. (In prior years, a hijacking meant a diversion, perhaps to Havana or Beirut, with hostage negotiations and standoffs; crews were accordingly trained in the concept of “passive resistance.”) The presence of box cutters on 9/11 was merely incidental. The men could have used almost anything — a deadly sharp can be fashioned from a broken first-class dinner plate or a ballpoint pen — particularly when coupled with the bluff of having a bomb. The success of their plan relied not on hardware but on the element of surprise. It wasn’t a failure of airport security that allowed those men to hatch their takeover scheme. It was a failure of national security — a breakdown of communication and oversight at the FBI and CIA level.

To put it succinctly: The success of the 9/11 attacks had almost nothing to do with airport security at all — a great and painful irony, of course, to any passenger forced to endure the checkpoint rigmarole in 2012.

Not that frontline guards don’t play a deterrent role.  And, in the opinions of some, the plot uncovered in Yemen underscores the value of full-body scanners — those controversial walk-through machines that allow guards to look beneath a passenger’s clothing. It’s a compelling argument, but the way in which these scanners have — and have not — been deployed is apt to make some of us cynical. For instance, the vast majority of body scanners are found at U.S. domestic airports. Overseas, where a bomb is far likelier to originate, they are rare. Is this really about safety, we wonder, or is it about billions of dollars going into the coffers of the companies contracted to build these machines?

And although the scanners are effective, where does the arms race end?  Not long ago, the idea that passengers would be marched through body scanners and photographed naked before being allowed to board an airplane, would have seemed outrageous. Yet here we are. What might be next?  The stubborn truth is, we can turn airports into fortresses if we want (in some respects we’re well along that path), yet we’ll never be entirely safe. Airport screening alone, no matter how thorough, how expensive, and how technologically advanced, will never defeat a relentless enough, resourceful enough adversary intent on downing a plane.

That isn’t capitulation, it’s reality.  And acknowledging this reality would go a long way toward warding off panic and overreaction when the next successful attack occurs.

Regrettably, too, we often forget that commercial air travel has long been a target of terrorist extremists.  The 1970s and 1980s in particular were, as I like to describe them, a Golden Age of Air Crimes, comparatively rife with bombings, hijackings and other deadly assaults against airplanes and airports. Over one five-year span between 1985 and 1989 we can count at least six high-profile terrorist attacks, including the horrific bombings of Pan Am 103 and UTA 772; the bombing of an Air India 747 over the North Atlantic that killed 329 people; and the incredible saga of TWA Flight 847.  And let’s not forget what might have been, such as the so-called “Project Bojinka,” the 1994 scheme masterminded by Ramzi Yousef (nephew of Kalid Sheikh Mohammad), in which impossible-to-detect (at the time) liquid explosives were to be used to simultaneously destroy a dozen U.S. airliners over the Pacific Ocean. Fortunately the plot unraveled and Yousef was arrested.

While we can argue, quite persuasively, that many of the current-day security measures have done little if anything to make us safer, we’ve nevertheless introduced measures that have been useful and effective, from explosives screening of checked luggage to the sorts of trans-border partnerships that broke up the most recent plot from Yemen. Whether in spite of, or because of, the attention we’ve lavished on All Things Terrorism, the past decade has seen fewer attacks against commercial air travel than any since the 1950s.What we need to remember, though, is that our success has had more to do with the security measures we don’t see than those taking place in plain view. And if our luck is to hold, we need to better rationalize and streamline our entire approach to airport security. For instance, if we’re going to have those body scanners, let’s put them where they’re needed. If this requires negotiating with foreign authorities whose airports are beyond TSA’s jurisdiction, so be it. Meanwhile, here at home, TSA’s one-size-fits-all approach, in which every single person who flies is seen as a potential threat, is simply unsustainable in a country where close to 2 million people fly daily. Things like taking snow globes from children, haggling over tiny container sizes, or confiscating a dessert fork from a uniformed, on-duty airline pilot (it happened to me) serve no useful purpose whatsoever. On the contrary, they divert valuable time and resources away from the things that could make us safer.  Let’s scale back that concourse Kabuki and retrain guards in the finer points of a more sensible, risk-based assessment of passengers and their belongings.

And lastly, if only as an aside, let’s behold for a moment the term “underwear bomb.”  That was the operative phrase in literally hundreds of articles and broadcasts over the past several days, and nowhere did it raise a snicker.  What does it say about our country, I wonder, that such a preposterous expression is instantly understood and effectively taken for granted?

Strange times indeed.

Continue Reading Close

Hiding 9/11′s last secrets

The military tribunal for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed means the American people will never know what drove him to terror

(Credit: Reuters//Brennan Linsley)

After a Navy SEAL team killed Osama bin Laden at his Pakistan hideout a year ago this week, it flew his body to the Arabian Sea, weighted it down, and slid it silently off an aircraft carrier into the watery depths.

For many Americans, the secret raid provided a measure of revenge and catharsis for the strikes of Sept. 11, 2001. But it didn’t provide the kind of justice and official reckoning that the country needs to gain real closure. Now the government has a chance to achieve that through a full, fair and open trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-defendants, so the world can finally see the evidence against him as the true architect of the attacks on New York and Washington. The trial kickoff — an arraignment for the men — is scheduled for this Saturday at the U.S.-run detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

This should be our Nuremburg, the defining trial of the 9/11 era and a fitting coda to it.

Unfortunately, the U.S. government appears to be on the verge of squandering this opportunity, and with it, the best, and perhaps only, chance for the public to understand not only how the attacks came to be, but why Mohammed waged a relentless war against America and how we might stop the next would-be terrorist mastermind.

The problems lie within the reformed military-tribunal system that the Obama administration put in place after losing its fight for a civilian trial in New York. Political compromises have resulted in a flawed military commissions process that from outward appearances is not only rigged against the defense, but hyper-choreographed, censored and hermetically sealed.

“The process is designed to achieve a conviction, and to do it with as little revelation as humanly possible, but with the veneer of due process and justice,’’ said one participant who said restrictive gag orders prohibited him from talking publicly. “You’re talking about the most heinous crime ever, and we’re going to afford them less due process, less discovery, less of everything than we would the guy who shoplifted a pack of gum from CVS.’’

Obama administration officials say their reformed military commissions system is a vast improvement over the Bush administration’s version, which Obama moved to shut down on his first day in office in 2009.

Defense lawyers disagree, and insist they have been hamstrung in their efforts to mount the kind of aggressive defense needed to do their jobs including full and unfettered access to evidence, witnesses and even the accused themselves.

Four of the five legal teams had so few of their key players in place in recent months that they did not file the “mitigation submissions’’ that the government said it needed to decide which of the five men should face the death penalty and other key issues, such as whether to try them together or individually. They recently filed motions asking that the charges be thrown out because of fatal flaws in the system, which they say make it impossible for them to defend their clients.

“It’s window dressing,’’ Mohammed’s defense lawyer, David Nevin, said of the government’s improvements. “I am not all satisfied that it is a fair process. In fact, it is not a fair process.’’

Many of the defense lawyers have quit out of frustration or for other personal reasons stemming from the many delays in the process. Only a few have been there long enough to even begin to understand their clients’ case, not to mention the convoluted military commission process.

And they say they will be unable to effectively challenge confessions obtained when their clients were coercively interrogated in the CIA’s black site prisons, if they can broach the subject at all. This is important for the four men accused of helping Mohammed with the logistics of the plot. Several claim they have been wrongly accused, tortured into confessing, or both.

It is also important with regard to Mohammed, who confessed to dozens of plots while being waterboarded 183 times, and has said he may plead guilty even before the trial begins. Few U.S. counterterrorism officials believe all of his often boastful confessions, and it is important for the public to hear what, exactly, evidence the government has with regard to what he did and didn’t do, and whom he might have been protecting.

The team of Defense and Justice Department officials overseeing the military commission process, and the presiding judge, should quickly address the defense lawyers’ complaints, or a proceeding that some call “The Trial of the Century’’ will be delayed further by legal wrangling — and forever tainted by accusations of being unfair.

A full, fair and transparent trial, above all, will benefit the public. There is much the public doesn’t know about Mohammed, including the details of how he devised the plot, convinced bin Laden to let him do it and then orchestrated it “from A to Z,’’ to use his own words. It was Mohammed who masterminded dozens of other plots and attacks, some while staying a step ahead of the largest-ever criminal manhunt.

Mohammed, not bin Laden, was the one who traveled the world as a kind of “Johnny Appleseed’’ of terrorism, establishing alliances and creating a network of cells and lieutenants that in some cases remains today. And it was Mohammed who personally recruited young jihadist prospects much like a baseball scout, many of them Westerners, tapping into their grievances to turn them to his cause.

The U.S. government has kept the details of what Mohammed did — and how and why he did it — hidden in its most classified files since his capture in Pakistan nine years ago. The government should set the record straight on that, because there is an important lesson to be learned from the largely untold tale of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: It isn’t some monolithic group like al-Qaida that poses a continuing threat, it’s the one intelligent and energetic person who can emerge from nowhere and orchestrate a 9/11 while the world focuses elsewhere.

To that end, the government should declassify as much evidence as possible, and explain how it obtained it. It should call numerous witnesses to testify, especially since the one who has been publicly identified, Majid Khan, claims he was tortured while in CIA custody overseas.

Instead of limiting access to a few closed-circuit TVs, it should consider televising the proceedings. It should ensure that censorship is minimized, and used only to protect intelligence sources and methods, not to save the government from embarrassment. And it should let Mohammed and the others testify at length on their behalf if they so desire.

By doing so, the Obama administration will be able to say it did its best to put on the kind of civilian trial it has wanted all along, and one with a similar outcome to that of the al Qaida members charged with blowing up two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998.

Those of us who witnessed that trial in Manhattan in 2001 saw the defendants squirm in their chairs as prosecutors introduced mountains of evidence against them. We saw eyewitnesses point the finger at the accused, and surviving victims glare at them from the pews.

We heard from the terrorists themselves, and learned a lot about why they did it, about how terrorist networks operate and about what might be done to stop people like them. And when the jury convicted them, there was no question that justice was done.

Continue Reading Close

Josh Meyer is the author, with Terry McDermott, of the new book, "The Hunt for KSM: Inside the Pursuit and Takedown of the Real 9/11 Mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.’’

FBI heroically locks up ridiculous anarchists on May Day

Feds stop inept radicals from carrying out a plot feds helped them conceive and carry out

U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach, left, and FBI special agent in charge Stephen Anthony walk past a map showing the location of a bridge on Ohio Rt. 82. Five men, pictured on the wall behind the map, have been arrested for conspiring to blow up the bridge. (Credit: AP/Mark Duncan)

Happy May Day, fellow travelers! If you’re not currently disrupting capitalism and/or having your wrists zip-tied for exercising your right to freely assemble, you probably read about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s latest, not-at-all suspiciously timed terror sting. The Bureau, in an inspired bit of early-20th century nostalgia, has railroaded a bunch of dangerous anarchists. (Or “dangerous” “anarchists.”) America will not waver in the face of the Galleanist threat!

Five young men from Cleveland are now in jail, accused of plotting to “blow up a bridge in the Cleveland area,” according to the FBI’s triumphant press release/criminal complaint. As is always the case with FBI terror stings, the “sting” part involved the bureau’s informant/agent provocateur mostly inventing the plot the accused have now been arrested for. In this case, the five planned to detonate smoke bombs as a distraction as they “topple[d] financial institution signs atop high rise buildings in downtown Cleveland.” But the informant (as usual, a sketchy unnamed character with a checkered past) strongly pushed the group to seriously consider different, more extreme plots. At the end, some or all of them were going to plant C-4 on the Route 82 Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge over the Cuyahoga Valley National Park.

So what was initially a political action aimed at financial institutions somehow morphed into a supposed attempt to destroy or damage a piece of publicly owned infrastructure in a national park. Anarchists sure do hate bridges, and parks, I guess. (No parliament of men has the authority to designate which spaces are “national parks”! The whole world is the worker’s national park!)

The FBI’s affadavit suggests that there was never actually a serious “plot.” The gang tossed around the idea of “taking out” a bridge in order to stop people from getting to work, but they also thought maybe they could use their (pretend) C4 on a Klan rally, or a neo-Nazi organization, or an oil well, or the Federal Reserve Bank. They eventually decided to maybe sink a ship. All of their many plans were super serious and well-thought out. (“To prevent capture, he suggested getting tacks that they could throw out of the back of a car if they get in a chase.”) Eventually they settled on the bridge thing, sort of, and bought fake IEDs from the guy they already suspected was a cop.

In other words, these are a bunch of dumbasses even by the standards of amateur “black bloc” dumbasses. Do you know how I know these morons weren’t serious? They planned to download the Anarchist Cookbook and follow its notoriously awful instructions. Every experienced anarchist knows that the Feds have a mole in your group house, but these guys were mainly concerned with having someone’s “hacker friend” explain to them how bitcoins work. Without the FBI’s intervention the most damage these idiots would’ve ever caused is a broken Starbucks window. So thank god they’re off the streets, and congrats to the FBI for getting this tale of dangerous, bomb-planting anarchists onto the news broadcasts on the day of Occupy’s big May Day action.

(At least the Feds are branching out from only targeting Muslims in these ridiculous “stings.” Some day all Americans, regardless of creed or color, will have their circle of friends secretly infiltrated by a paid informant.)

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Page 1 of 159 in Terrorism