Prometheus 6

9/11 Files Show Warnings Were Urgent and Persistent
By DAVID JOHNSTON and JIM DWYER

ASHINGTON, April 17 — Early this year, the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks played four minutes of a call from Betty Ong, a crew member on American Airlines Flight 11. The power of her call could not have been plainer: in a calm voice, Ms. Ong told her supervisors about the hijacking, the weapons the attackers had used, the locations of their seats.

At first, however, Ms. Ong's reports were greeted skeptically by some officials on the ground. "They did not believe her," said Bob Kerrey, a commission member. "They said, `Are you sure?' They asked her to confirm that it wasn't air-rage. Our people on the ground were not prepared for a hijacking."

For most Americans, the disbelief was the same. The attacks of Sept. 11 seemed to come in a stunning burst from nowhere. But now, after two weeks of extraordinary public hearings and a dozen detailed reports, the lengthy documentary record makes clear that predictions of an attack by Al Qaeda had been communicated directly to the highest levels of the government.

The threat reports were more clear, urgent and persistent than was previously known. Some focused on Al Qaeda's plans to use commercial aircraft as weapons. Others stated that Osama bin Laden was intent on striking on United States soil. Many were passed to the Federal Aviation Administration.

While some of the intelligence went back years, other warnings — including one that Al Qaeda seemed interested in hijacking a plane inside this country — had been delivered to the president on Aug. 6, 2001, just a month before the attacks.

Huh? What's that got to do with The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act?

A lot. You see, while we're all gloating about the Bushistas getting caught up in lies and having their arrogance exposed for all to see, they're using the hearings to build a case for more oppressive domestic capabilities.

We know what their plans are. We know law enforcement officials have already used their new anti-terrorism powers for non-terrorism-related cases. We've seen an attempt to make the drug "war" part of the "war" on terrorism through the invention ofthe term "narco-terrorist" (hatched, btw, by Ashcroft, who it seems was disregarding terrorism and focusing on drugs all along).

We know they're saying the full powers authorized by the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act have never been used. Why, then, do they want more?

Even if you trust this crew, do you want such powers laying about for future unknowns to use as they see fit?

The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act expires in 2005, but folks aren't waiting. Patriot II was sliced up into components in an attempt to slip it in, like passing the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle under the door. Don't allow it. Even if you think we need more domestic intelligence capabilities (why? The threat was known for years! It wasn't information that was lacking, it was political will) make them prove the need for each additional capability they request. Build in safeguards to prevent their abuse (how? How hell should I know? That neither of us can think of safeguards is just more proof the powers granted by the Act should not exist).

Stay awake. This political thing is about a lot more than Munsters and monkeyboys.