9/11 Panel Gives White House Mixed Review (Dubya hasn't stopped al-Qaida attempts to get WMD)

9/11 Panel Gives White House Mixed Review
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer
1 hour, 10 minutes ago

Fred Fielding, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, prepares to join other panelists in a progress report on the 2004 recommendations aimed at guarding against future terrorist attacks, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, Monday, Nov. 14, 2005. Fielding, a former Nixon White House counsel, praised U.S. attempts to integrate the Arab and Muslim world into the global trading system and in fighting terrorism financing. The Bush administration was given a mixed review and was criticized for not adopting standards for treatment of captured terror suspects. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

WASHINGTON - Reviewing action on recommendations it made last year, the Sept. 11 commission on Monday criticized the Bush administration for not adopting standards for treatment of captured terror suspects.

The administration was given a mixed review in a report on the commission's key recommendations that were designed to help the United States better prepare for and respond to a terror attack.

There was high praise for U.S. attempts to integrate the Arab and Muslim world into the global trading system and in fighting terrorism financing.

But former commission chairman Thomas Kean, former vice chairman Lee Hamilton and the eight other members who formed the 9-11 Public Disclosure Project found much to criticize.

Their review gave the administration the grade "unfulfilled" on the commission's recommendation that the United States develop a common approach with friendly nations on the treatment of captured terror suspects. The commission also had suggested the Geneva Conventions on the law of armed conflict should be applied to military prisons and secret detention centers.

What the Bush administration still needs to do, the review said, is to adopt standards for terror suspects that are in accord with international law.

"These standards should cover the treatment of detainees held by all elements of the U.S. government," the former commission members said.

And, they said, "the United States should work with its allies to develop mutually acceptable standards for terrorist detention."

President Bush last week defended U.S. interrogation practices and called the treatment of terrorist suspects lawful. "We do not torture," Bush declared.

Congress, meanwhile, is engaged in a high-profile debate over the handling of detainees. The Senate twice has signed off on legislation to ban the cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody.

The provision is included in two defense bills. The House versions of the bills do not include the language, which the White House opposes.

At Monday's presentation, commission member Richard Ben-Veniste said Iraq is on track to succeed Afghanistan as a terrorist training ground. "How much this trend has been fueled by the highly publicized reports of brutalization, humiliation and desecration cannot be measured accurately," he said.

"But the flames of extremism undoubtedly burn more brightly when we are the ones who deliver the gasoline," Ben-Veniste said.

On another front, the former commission members found insufficient progress on thwarting attempts by the al-Qaida network to acquire or make weapons of mass destruction.

On the positive side, the review cited an agreement reached last February by Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin to secure nuclear warheads and material.

Russia, for instance, has made several dozen additional nuclear warhead storage sites available for inspection and improvement, the review said.

But more than 100 research facilities worldwide — in some 40 countries — contain enough highly enriched uranium to fashion a nuclear device, and this is troubling, the report said.

"Preventing terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction must be elevated above all other problems of national security," the former commission members said. "It represents the greatest threat to the American people" and President Bush should publicly make this goal his top priority, the review said.

"I think that it is an unreal expectation to believe that we could ever find these perfect people that would be alert and follow procedure 100% of the time, though."

I agree that there always be the element of human mistakes, but certainly there must be ways we can reduce the impact of those mistakes. Another major problem I have is the fact that I've never once been asked to power on my laptop. Lord knows what I could assemble within the space of my laptop, and a bunch of printed circuit boards inside a laptop chasis looks perfectly normal through a machine. It wouldn't be bad if it were just some healthy paranoia, but when I board an airplane, I can't help but think that I can't rely on airport security in the slightest to ensure there's no one armed and dangerous on this aircraft.

Another major problem I have is the fact that I've never once been asked to power on my laptop. Lord knows what I could assemble within the space of my laptop, and a bunch of printed circuit boards inside a laptop chasis looks perfectly normal through a machine

I've had that concern, too. Add in all the DVD players, MP-3 players and cell phones, to that, too. Hey, even children's toys make me nervous. This is why I say, it's impossible. I think the only feasible thing they could do to avoid the possiblity that one of these could be rigged is to totally BAN them from the flights. Yeah, that would go over like a lead balloon. Sooooo, do you want to come 2 hours earlier or so for your flight and stand in line while they test out every electronic gizmo in everyone's luggage and carry on bags?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass and I don't think you are being paranoid. I just really don't see how it can be feasible to protect ourselves as well as we want to be protected and I'm not going to throw sticks and stones at the airline industry. I think they are in an impossible position.

For starters, try hiring competent people; not 80 year old women who couldn't read the name on my ticket and didn't bother even glancing at my ID...

The TSA:
Making jobs for easily bored people since 9/11/01.

"Sooooo, do you want to come 2 hours earlier or so for your flight and stand in line while they test out every electronic gizmo in everyone's luggage and carry on bags?"

I don't see why this would be an issue. Let the laptop/MP3 player/DVD player, etc go through the machine like it normally would, then ask the person to power it on. So long as you get music playing or a display of some sort on the screen, you can be reasonably sure that it's what it appears to be. Lord knows you could probably design some nasty stuff to fit inside of a laptop that looks good when it goes through the machine, but could you do that and have the laptop/DVD player/etc still function? I work on laptops for a living, and I can't begin to think of how to manage that. I'm not saying you have to wait for it to boot all the way up or watch the entirity of Sleepless in Seattle; just make sure it's a functional device and not a plastic shell with bomb parts inside.

I don't see why this would be an issue

It doesn't take long for one person to fire up their laptop, turn on their DVD or MP-3 player, etc., but multiply that short time by the hundreds of people in line and it's gonna bog things down considerably, especially on long distance/overseas flights where practically everyone in line has several electronic gadgets and gizmos.

I already get ticked off to no end by the morons that wait until they get right up to the conveyor belt to lean down and take off their shoes and get their change out of their pockets. I can just imagine what it will be like when you expect even more out of them. "I didn't know I had to take my DVD player out of it's case. I have to turn it on for you, too?!? I can't find where I put my DVDs. Now...where is that on/off switch."

""Preventing terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction must be elevated above all other problems of national security," the former commission members said. "It represents the greatest threat to the American people" and President Bush should publicly make this goal his top priority, the review said."

Did I read this right?

Gorelick and Ben-Viniste want us to "prevent terrorists from gaining access to WMD's", and that this "should be Bush's top priority?

Why in the hell do they think we are in Iraq?

Morons.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.