AP: U.S. Foresaw Terror Threats in 1970s

[Engineer]

Click me!

AP: U.S. Foresaw Terror Threats in 1970s

3 minutes ago U.S. Government - AP


By FRANK BASS and RANDY HERSCHAFT, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON - Nearly three decades before the Sept. 11 attacks, a high-level government panel developed plans to protect the nation against terrorist acts ranging from radiological "dirty bombs" to airline missile attacks, according to declassified documents obtained by The Associated Press.


AP Photo



"Unless governments take basic precautions, we will continue to stand at the edge of an awful abyss," Robert Kupperman, chief scientist for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, wrote in a 1977 report that summarized nearly five years of work by the Cabinet Committee to Combat Terrorism.


The group was formed in September 1972 by President Nixon after Palestinian commandos slaughtered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games (news - web sites). The committee involved people as diverse as Henry Kissinger to a young Rudolph Giuliani, the once-secret documents show.


"It is vital that we take every possible action ourselves and in concert with other nations designed to assure against acts of terrorism," Nixon wrote in asking his secretary of state, William Rogers, to oversee the task force.


"It is equally important that we be prepared to act quickly and effectively in the event that, despite all efforts at prevention, an act of terrorism occurs involving the United States, either at home or abroad," the president said.


The full committee met only once, in October 1972, to organize, but its experts did get together twice a month over nearly five years to identify threats and debate solutions, the memos show.


Eventually, the group's influence waned as competing priorities, a change of presidents ushered in by Watergate, bureaucratic turf battles and a lack of spectacular domestic attacks took their toll.


But before that happened, the panel identified many of the same threats that would confront President Bush (news - web sites) at the dawn of the 21st century.


The experts fretted that terrorists might gather loose nuclear materials for a "dirty bomb" that could devastate an American city by spreading lethal radioactivity.


"This is a real threat, not science fiction," National Security Council staffer Richard T. Kennedy wrote his boss, Kissinger, in November 1972.


Rogers, in a memo to Nixon in mid-1973, praised the Atomic Energy Commission's steps to safeguard nuclear weapons. Rogers, however, also warned the president that "atomic materials could afford mind-boggling possibilities for terrorists."


Committee members identified commercial jets as a particular vulnerability, but raised concerns that airlines would not pay for security improvements such as tighter screening procedures and routine baggage inspections.


"The trouble with the plans is that airlines and airports will have to absorb the costs and so they will scream bloody murder should this be required of them," according to a White House memo from 1972. "Otherwise, it is a sound plan which will curtail the risk of hijacking substantially."


By 1976, government pressure to improve airport security and thwart hijackings had awakened airline industry lobbyists.


The International Air Transport Association said "airport security is the responsibility of the host government. The airline industry did not consider the terrorist threat its most significant problem; it had to measure it against other priorities. If individual companies were forced to provide their own security, they would go broke," according to minutes from one meeting.


Thousands of pages of heavily blacked out records and memos obtained by the AP from government archives and under the Freedom of Information Act show the task force:


_discussed defending commercial aircraft against being shot down by portable missile systems;





_recommended improved vigilance at potential "soft" targets, such as major holiday events, municipal water supplies, nuclear power plants and electric power facilities;

_supported cracking down on foreigners living in and traveling through the United States, with particular attention to Middle Easterners and Arab-Americans;

_developed plans to protect U.S. diplomats and businessmen working abroad against kidnapping and attack.

Though the CIA (news - web sites) routinely updated the committee on potential terrorist threats and plots, task force members learned quickly that intelligence gathering and coordination was a weak spot, just as Bush would discover three decades later.

Long before he was mayor and helped New York City recover from the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, Giuliani told the committee in May 1976 that he feared legal restrictions were thwarting federal agents from collecting intelligence unless there had been a violation of the law.

Giuliani, who at that time was the associate deputy attorney general in President Ford's Justice Department (news - web sites), suggested relaxing intelligence collection guidelines ? something that occurred with the Patriot Act three decades later

Other committee members said that obstacles to intelligence gathering were more bureaucratic than legal.

Lewis Hoffacker, a veteran ambassador who served as chairman of the terrorism working group, told the AP that institutional rivalries, particularly between the FBI (news - web sites) and CIA, were a constant source of frustration even in the 1970s.

"That was our headache, a quarter-century ago," said Hoffacker, now retired. "They all pulled back into their little fiefdoms. The CIA was always off by itself, and the FBI was dealing with the same situation they're dealing with today."

Finding the political will to fight terrorism in the absence of a major attack in the United States also quickly became a problem. Proposals for international penalties against countries harboring terrorists drew little support from the United Nations (news - web sites), the memos show.

"The climate at the 1974 General Assembly was such that no profitable initiative in the terrorism field was feasible," Ford heard from Kissinger, his secretary of state, in early 1975.

Two years later, the working group was absorbed by the National Security Council. In a 1978 report, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee (news - web sites) worried that the Carter administration was not giving enough attention to terrorism.

"The United States will not be able to combat the growing challenge of terrorism unless the executive policy-making apparatus is more effectively and forcefully utilized," the Senate committee warned

Interesting.

Question: Did the government absorb the costs of airline security or did it pass it on to the airport/airlines themselves?

 

[Bowfinger]

Very interesting, especially since there is significant overlap between that administration and the current one.

 

[GrGr]

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, May 2002.

 

[cwjerome]

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

:roll:

Is there really a point to this quote?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: GrGr
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, May 2002.

You made a good point there. Unfortunately, all the rage these days is to be a reactionary only society. Damned if you do, damned if you don't....

 

[cwjerome]

There is no point to GrGr's quote, unless your a rabid Bush-hating freak who will piece together anything to try and advance your agenda. I have heard of so many possibilities, so many types of threats... I have military books from the 80s that discuss terroristic tactics and possible attacks, from dam destruction, massive forest fires, reservoir poisoning, mall massacres, and the list goes on and on. There's all kinds of pasty intel nerds and civilian hobbyists who constantly speculate on "what could happen."

The thing is nobody can reasonably PREDICT what/if/when something will happen. Maybe somebody in the government should announce: "We PREDICT that the following may happen sometime in the next 1-30 years," and then go on to list about 759 different possible scenerios that imaginative minds can think up... just to cover there ass from the opportunistic Leftist jerks.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
There is no point to GrGr's quote, unless your a rabid Bush-hating freak who will piece together anything to try and advance your agenda. I have heard of so many possibilities, so many types of threats... I have military books from the 80s that discuss terroristic tactics and possible attacks, from dam destruction, massive forest fires, reservoir poisoning, mall massacres, and the list goes on and on. There's all kinds of pasty intel nerds and civilian hobbyists who constantly speculate on "what could happen."

The thing is nobody can reasonably PREDICT what/if/when something will happen. Maybe somebody in the government should announce: "We PREDICT that the following may happen sometime in the next 1-30 years," and then go on to list about 759 different possible scenerios that imaginative minds can think up... just to cover there ass from the opportunistic Leftist jerks.

His point is indeed valid. The National Security Director, Rice, making a statement like that when the very possibility had been obiously covered many years before, and by several that are in the current administrations does make one think, don't you think?

What does this have to do with Leftist jerks (their ass)? Rightie jerks use it for fearmongering.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
There is no point to GrGr's quote, unless your a rabid Bush-hating freak who will piece together anything to try and advance your agenda..

BINGO

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
There is no point to GrGr's quote, unless your a rabid Bush-hating freak who will piece together anything to try and advance your agenda. I have heard of so many possibilities, so many types of threats... I have military books from the 80s that discuss terroristic tactics and possible attacks, from dam destruction, massive forest fires, reservoir poisoning, mall massacres, and the list goes on and on. There's all kinds of pasty intel nerds and civilian hobbyists who constantly speculate on "what could happen."

The thing is nobody can reasonably PREDICT what/if/when something will happen. Maybe somebody in the government should announce: "We PREDICT that the following may happen sometime in the next 1-30 years," and then go on to list about 759 different possible scenerios that imaginative minds can think up... just to cover there ass from the opportunistic Leftist jerks.

ROFL. Someone took a double dose of hostility pills this morning.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: cwjerome
There is no point to GrGr's quote, unless your a rabid Bush-hating freak who will piece together anything to try and advance your agenda..

BINGO

National Security Director: Makes statement: Statement covered 30 years earlier with members of administration. Enough typed and RICE owned!


Doesn't make a difference if you hate Bush or not (I do). Many here jumped on the bandwagon and blamed Clinton for not doing enough. What about the previous administrations? eh?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Engineer


His point is indeed valid. The National Security Director, Rice, making a statement like that when the very possibility had been obiously covered many years before, and by several that are in the current administrations does make one think, don't you think?

What does this have to do with Leftist jerks

The big issue before the election was pre-emption -vs- reaction. The leftist jerks were in favor of the latter. The rightie jerks were in favor of the former.

I can get some quotes for you if you like...

 

[cwjerome]

Yeah, let's look over 30 YEARS and sift through 1 trillion words, discussions, and memos at all levels of government and inact contingencies and predictions for all. Weak... talk about grasping at straws.

My first post stands...

 

[Beowulf]

I thought ppl hated Nixon especially over Vietnam and the whole watergate incident.So under all those circumstances why would any politician believe anything Nixon said even though he was far more smarter than we knew according to these papers.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Engineer


His point is indeed valid. The National Security Director, Rice, making a statement like that when the very possibility had been obiously covered many years before, and by several that are in the current administrations does make one think, don't you think?

What does this have to do with Leftist jerks

The big issue before the election was pre-emption -vs- reaction. The leftist jerks were in favor of the latter. The rightie jerks were in favor of the former.

I can get some quotes for you if you like...

No quotes necessary. I would like to be pro-active at home, but this pro-active crap (aka Iraq) is full of it. Jumping in after spreading all the propaganda that the current administration spread is pure Bushshit! If they want to make airports more secure, fine. Homeland security fine. Our borders are so open it's not funny (especially the Mexican side). Should have been done long ago, but to say that such and such country is a threat and bomb the crap out of them and then turn the cheek to the other countries (Saudia Arabia) when they produce just as much terror as any other is pure hyprocital.

And no, I don't think we should have went to Iraq nor do I SA. We're not making anything safer here by either.

 

[GrGr]

Why couldn't Rice "predict" that airplanes could be used as missiles as both she and Bush had been forced to stay on a carrier during the G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy July 2001 (a couple of months before 9/11), due to the threat from the air? The Italian government had closed down the local airspace, had fighter jets patrolling the skies during the summit, and had AA gun batteries ready to deal with a potential threat from the air.

"About 15,000 police are on duty as part of the $110 million security operation. Surface-to-air missiles, fighter jets and naval ships form part of the security operation, which is also responsible for defending the summit from attacks by terrorists." CNN July 2001

----------

Missiles to protect summit leaders

Rory Carroll in Rome
Wednesday July 11, 2001
The Guardian July 11 2001

Italy has installed a missile defence system at Genoa's airport to deter airborne attacks during next week's G8 summit, fuelling hysteria about looming violence.
A land-based battery of rockets with a range of nine miles and an altitude of 5,000 feet has been positioned in the latest security measure against perceived threats from terrorists and protesters.

Unidentified planes, helicopters and balloons risk being shot down should they drift too close to the heads of state from the group of seven leading industrialised nations and Russia.

Colonel Alberto Battaglini, of the ministry of defence, said the precaution was not excessive. "The measure, which was planned by the previous government, may seem open to criticism, but in reality it is merely to act as a deterrent against any aerial incursion during the summit.

"They are little missiles ... which only have a deterrent function to discourage any aerial-led attack and they do not present any danger to the residents of the city," he said.

The missile system, dubbed Spada, was erected along Italy's Adriatic coast during Nato's 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia.
...

The millionaire terrorist, Osama bin Laden, has been linked to an alleged plot to assassinate the US president, George Bush.

Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, has inspected Genoa twice and declared himself satisfied with the security.

And why did (does) the US Air Force have orders to shoot down hijacked aircrafts, which it conspicuosly failed to do on 9/11 exept maybe for the last plane, if not to prevent "predicted" scenarios where hijacked airplanes are flown into buildings?


Face the truth, cwjerome. The question is not if Rice lied but why she lied.

 

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Why couldn't Rice "predict" that airplanes could be used as missiles as both she and Bush had been forced to stay on a carrier during the G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy July 2001 (a couple of months before 9/11), due to the threat from the air? The Italian government had closed down the local airspace, had fighter jets patrolling the skies during the summit, and had AA gun batteries ready to deal with a potential threat from the air.

"About 15,000 police are on duty as part of the $110 million security operation. Surface-to-air missiles, fighter jets and naval ships form part of the security operation, which is also responsible for defending the summit from attacks by terrorists." CNN July 2001

----------

Missiles to protect summit leaders

Rory Carroll in Rome
Wednesday July 11, 2001
The Guardian July 11 2001

Italy has installed a missile defence system at Genoa's airport to deter airborne attacks during next week's G8 summit, fuelling hysteria about looming violence.
A land-based battery of rockets with a range of nine miles and an altitude of 5,000 feet has been positioned in the latest security measure against perceived threats from terrorists and protesters.

Unidentified planes, helicopters and balloons risk being shot down should they drift too close to the heads of state from the group of seven leading industrialised nations and Russia.

Colonel Alberto Battaglini, of the ministry of defence, said the precaution was not excessive. "The measure, which was planned by the previous government, may seem open to criticism, but in reality it is merely to act as a deterrent against any aerial incursion during the summit.

"They are little missiles ... which only have a deterrent function to discourage any aerial-led attack and they do not present any danger to the residents of the city," he said.

The missile system, dubbed Spada, was erected along Italy's Adriatic coast during Nato's 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia.
...

The millionaire terrorist, Osama bin Laden, has been linked to an alleged plot to assassinate the US president, George Bush.

Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, has inspected Genoa twice and declared himself satisfied with the security.

And why did (does) the US Air Force have orders to shoot down hijacked aircrafts, which it conspicuosly failed to do on 9/11 exept maybe for the last plane, if not to prevent "predicted" scenarios where hijacked airplanes are flown into buildings?


Face the truth, cwjerome. The question is not if Rice lied but why she lied.

I saw the history channel special on 9/11 and Norad flew out into the Atlantic expecting to see Russians coming to attack us.All Norad knew was planes in the air were ready to start something they weren't even told by the FAA that it was hijacked 747's.Norad is the group created during the Cold War to handle situations like 9/11 but even they were still behind with barely any funding and expecting the commies to come attack us.

 

[cwjerome]

lol, whatever....

Just because something *COULD* happen doesn't mean you can predict it. That is, unless you're a member of the hate-Bush club, then things mean whatever you want.

 

[cwjerome]

But Beowulf, the government is supposed to be perfect and know-all see-all. If they aren't then they're obviously lying cheating conspiring EVAL bastards!

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
lol, whatever....

Just because something *COULD* happen doesn't mean you can predict it. That is, unless you're a member of the hate-Bush club, then things mean whatever you want.

Funny, many on here said that Clinton could have done more? Now previous administrations, very similar to the current, predicted but DID NOTHING and it's OK. Where's the outrage because they did nothing?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Engineer


His point is indeed valid. The National Security Director, Rice, making a statement like that when the very possibility had been obiously covered many years before, and by several that are in the current administrations does make one think, don't you think?

What does this have to do with Leftist jerks

The big issue before the election was pre-emption -vs- reaction. The leftist jerks were in favor of the latter. The rightie jerks were in favor of the former.

I can get some quotes for you if you like...

No quotes necessary. I would like to be pro-active at home, but this pro-active crap (aka Iraq) is full of it. Jumping in after spreading all the propaganda that the current administration spread is pure Bushshit! If they want to make airports more secure, fine. Homeland security fine. Our borders are so open it's not funny (especially the Mexican side). Should have been done long ago, but to say that such and such country is a threat and bomb the crap out of them and then turn the cheek to the other countries (Saudia Arabia) when they produce just as much terror as any other is pure hyprocital.

And no, I don't think we should have went to Iraq nor do I SA. We're not making anything safer here by either.

Being "pro-active" at home in such a broad manner would not be a winner , because unfortunately, when you are pro-active, you only foster debate about what you may have accomplished and there is no real way to defend your position or weigh your accomplishment.

You can only do the 'what if" things that we conservatives are so good at. Fortunately, we can look at history and weigh some of these "what ifs" and dismiss the criticism that we face and hope that we are going to do the right things. We are going to win some and we are going to loose some, that is just the way it is....

 

[cwjerome]

Engineer I have outrage, especially Carter through Bush 2, that more wasn't done. The government faltered in that respect, but that doesn't mean I take a quote from a person and make fairytale accusations. It was a structural failure, from top to bottom, for over 30+ years. Playing politics with Rice's quote to score brownie points is just disgusting.

PREDICT? Puh-leeze....

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Engineer


His point is indeed valid. The National Security Director, Rice, making a statement like that when the very possibility had been obiously covered many years before, and by several that are in the current administrations does make one think, don't you think?

What does this have to do with Leftist jerks

The big issue before the election was pre-emption -vs- reaction. The leftist jerks were in favor of the latter. The rightie jerks were in favor of the former.

I can get some quotes for you if you like...

No quotes necessary. I would like to be pro-active at home, but this pro-active crap (aka Iraq) is full of it. Jumping in after spreading all the propaganda that the current administration spread is pure Bushshit! If they want to make airports more secure, fine. Homeland security fine. Our borders are so open it's not funny (especially the Mexican side). Should have been done long ago, but to say that such and such country is a threat and bomb the crap out of them and then turn the cheek to the other countries (Saudia Arabia) when they produce just as much terror as any other is pure hyprocital.

And no, I don't think we should have went to Iraq nor do I SA. We're not making anything safer here by either.

Being "pro-active" at home in such a broad manner would not be a winner , because unfortunately, when you are pro-active, you only foster debate about what you may have accomplished and there is no real way to defend your position or weigh your accomplishment.

You can only do the 'what if" things that we conservatives are so good at. Fortunately, we can look at history and weigh some of these "what ifs" and dismiss the criticism that we face and hope that we are going to do the right things. We are going to win some and we are going to loose some, that is just the way it is....

Well, if we think we're going to win the war on terroism the Iraq way style, then LOL. Al Qaeda is sitting back and is estimated growing quite rapidly. Now Bush springs the libety and tyranny speaches that the world hears and it builds their momentum even more. It's one thing to help people who have already started helping themselves, but to throw out crap and then invade on a whim is Bushshit!

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Engineer I have outrage, especially Carter through Bush 2, that more wasn't done. The government faltered in that respect, but that doesn't mean I take a quote from a person and make fairytale accusations. It was a structural failure, from top to bottom, for over 30+ years. Playing politics with Rice's quote to score brownie points is just disgusting.

PREDICT? Puh-leeze....

I'll give Rice a break. I can't say she did or didn't know of the past. My OP was presented as news and then commented that many blamed 9/11 on Clinton and crew, when in reality, it was decades of possible neglect. However, Iraq and similar methods aren't the way, IMO. And it would now indicate that 61% of the American people believe the same as that's the % of US citizens that believe that the war in Iraq wasn't worth it. Bush might not care with his mandate, but Congress up for re-election in less than one year sure does.

 

[illustri]

Its hard to fix a system bottom to top, all we do is point at the figureheads, Bush, Rice, Ashcroft... we've set up a pretty noxious beaucracy over the years where accountability's buffered and diluted by heiarchy.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
lol, whatever....

Just because something *COULD* happen doesn't mean you can predict it. That is, unless you're a member of the hate-Bush club, then things mean whatever you want.

Other nations had taken the threat from the air seriously before 9/11 as evidenced from Italy who could in fact "predict" an attack from the air. France in actual fact prevented an al-Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the Eiffel tower in 1994 when French soldiers stormed a hijacked airplane.

Summer 2001: US intelligence received warnings of multiple hijackings from Afghanistan, Argentina, Britain, Cayman Islands, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco and Russia. The Russian warning came directly from President Vladimir Putin.

No of course there was no way for poor Condi to "predict" that al-Qaeda was going to attack the US using hijacked airplanes. Not for Condi perhaps but other people has in fact "predicted" just such a scenario, Tom Clancy for example (1994 - a 747 is flown into the Capitol during a presidential speech).


-------------

After your briefings, do you think the administration responded adequately to your warnings?

Well, let me just go through the history of things. Because we also sent copies of the report to every member of Congress. And we lobbied specific members of Congress, including Joe Lieberman, who took it very seriously. And in the spring of 2001, some members of Congress introduced legislation to create a homeland security agency. Hearings were scheduled. And our commission, which was scheduled to go out of operation on Feb. 15, 2001, was given a six-month extension so we could testify with some authority. Which we did in March and April.

And then as Congress started to move on this, and the heat was turned up, George Bush -- and this is often overlooked -- held a press conference or made a public statement on May 5, 2001, calling on Congress not to act and saying he was turning over the whole matter to Dick Cheney.

So this wasn't just neglect, it was an active position by the administration. He said, "I don't want Congress to do anything until the vice president advises me." We now know from Dick Clarke that Cheney never held a meeting on terrorism, there was never any kind of discussion on the department of homeland security that we had proposed. There was no vice presidential action on this matter.

In other words, a bipartisan commission of seven Democrats and seven Republicans who had spent two and a half years studying the problem, a group of Americans with a cumulative 300 years in national security affairs, recommended to the president of the United States on a reasonably urgent basis the creation of a Cabinet-level agency to protect our country -- and the president did nothing!

By the way, when our final report came out in 2001, it did not receive word one in the New York Times. Zero. The Washington Post put it on Page 3 or 4, below the fold.

So there was absolutely no follow-up on your commission's recommendations once Bush referred the matter to Cheney?

Right.

And were you ever consulted again by the administration?

No. But as one of those fearing a near-term attack, I went out on my own throughout the spring and summer of 2001 saying, "The terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming." One of the speeches I gave was, ironically enough, to the International Air Transportation Association in Montreal. And the Montreal newspapers headlined the story, "Hart predicts terrorist attacks on America."

By pre-arrangement I had gotten an appointment with Condi Rice the following day and had gone straight from Montreal to Washington to meet with her. And my brief message to her was, "Get going on homeland security, you don't have all the time in the world." This was on Sept. 6, 2001.

What was her response?

Her response was "I'll talk to the vice president about it." And this tracks with Clarke's testimony and writing that even at this late date, nothing was being done inside the White House.

And your sense from talking with Rice that day was ...

She didn't seem to feel a terrible sense of urgency. Her response was simply "I'll talk to the vice president about it."

Did you get a sense that the administration had made any progress on security since you first briefed her, Rumsfeld and Powell in January?

No. I think she made some kind of gratuitous statements like, "We've taken your report very seriously, we're looking at it, we're thinking about it, we've asked people to give comments on it."

Gary Hart warns of imminent terrorist attacks pre 9/11