dieseltaylor Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Pro Republica is news for grown ups and the editor has chosen his favourite long articles from the serious Press. This is one of them: From the New Yorker and is about how the CIA possibly contributed to the 9/11 attack. Possibly is actually polite. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/10/060710fa_fact_wright Then the C.I.A. chief drew Soufan aside and handed him a manila envelope. Inside were three surveillance photographs and a complete report about the Malaysia meeting—the very material that he had asked for so many times. The Wall had come down. When Soufan realized that the C.I.A. had known for more than a year and a half that two of the hijackers were in the country he ran into the bathroom and threw up. (Soufan’s disillusionment with the government was so profound that he eventually quit the bureau; in 2005, he became director of international operations for Giuliani Security and Safety, a company founded by Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York.) Read more http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/10/060710fa_fact_wright#ixzz1GraQ0GQg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 IMHO, the only way the CIA contributed to the 9-11 attacks was by being totally, entirely, disorganized. But they were not alone, FBI agents knew the eventual hijackers were in the USA ,and questioned superiors about the flight lessons being given, etc, but were all told essentially "it is nothing to worry about"...so..direct aid for the terrorists? hardly...but aid by being stupid? most definitely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Great read, DT. Occasionally The New Yorker comes through. Thanks. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Diesel, finished reading the link, and it is enough to make the blood boil...letting inter-agency rivalry stop them from doing their job. I still would not say they intentionally aided the attack, but in the end result, the difference between "intentionally aided" and "was so f%^*ing stupid that they let it happen" is pretty small.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Diesel, finished reading the link, and it is enough to make the blood boil...letting inter-agency rivalry stop them from doing their job. I still would not say they intentionally aided the attack, but in the end result, the difference between "intentionally aided" and "was so f%^*ing stupid that they let it happen" is pretty small.... I wonder if the inter-agency rivalry is now greater given the huge new number of agences? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I wonder if the inter-agency rivalry is now greater given the huge new number of agences? I think so...everybody tries to protect their piece of turf, because if they don't they are afraid that someone may decide that their agency needs less of a budget than another agency. You guys get that in Australia? bureaucracy... the real enemy haha. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 There have been cases of rivalry between the AFP (which acts in a kind of similar role to the FBI) and ASIO (domestic intel) and ASIS (foreign intel). They don't like each other much. But we don't have the huge number of extra things like you guys have created under homeland security, nor things like a separate Secret Service, ATF etc etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 There have been cases of rivalry between the AFP (which acts in a kind of similar role to the FBI) and ASIO (domestic intel) and ASIS (foreign intel). They don't like each other much. But we don't have the huge number of extra things like you guys have created under homeland security, nor things like a separate Secret Service, ATF etc etc. On that, we should copy you guys...how many agencies are really needed to basically do the same thing, anyway...geez... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 There is a slightly different scale in terms of budget and poipualtion though, remember! Our police strcuture is also much flatter. We only have State cops for each state. The Aus Fed Police are mainly concerned with stuff like transnational crime. They don't really over-ride the state cops. When I read somewhere that in Washington DC there are something like 7 different police style agencies from National Parks upwards....that to me is crazy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 That is true, and really is ridiculous...I know many fed agencies here pledged after 9-11 to streamline things and "work together"...not really sure how that is working out, because for obvious reasons they don't publicize their in-fighting very much....but it requires in many ways almost a ground level change, and not sure that bureaucracies can actually do that, at least, on less than an epoch-time scale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.