9/11 panel is told of cover-ups before attacks Witnesses say U.S. suppressed warnings
by Bryan A. Keogh, Chicago Tribune May 24, 2003
"The notion that these hijackings and terrorism were an unforeseen and unforeseeable risk is an airline and FAA public-relations management myth," said Mary Schiavo, a former inspector general at the Department of Transportation, in testimony Friday.
WASHINGTON -- The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were made possible by gaping holes in airline security, government cover-ups that prevented problems from being fixed and a failure to respond to a growing threat that terrorists might use airliners as weapons, witnesses told an independent commission this week.
"The notion that these hijackings and terrorism were an unforeseen and unforeseeable risk is an airline and FAA public-relations management myth," said Mary Schiavo, a former inspector general at the Department of Transportation, in testimony Friday.
But Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta told the 10-member panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks that the federal government was caught unawares and had not anticipated such an attack.
"I don't think we ever thought of an aircraft being used as a missile," he said, acknowledging that the United States was unprepared.
During two days of hearings, some commission members argued there were plenty of indications that terrorists were planning a major attack against this country in the months before Sept. 11. These members said they were stunned by Mineta's comments and by how they conflicted with other testimony.
A security inspector with the Transportation Security Administration told the commission Thursday that undercover tests he had conducted revealed persistent, egregious weaknesses in airport security systems.
"Although we breached security with ridiculous ease up to 90 percent of the time, the FAA suppressed these warnings," said Bogdan Dzakovic, who became a Federal Aviation Administration whistleblower one month after Sept. 11.
Dzakovic called the state of airline security "unsafe" and said his "Red Team" of undercover security agents were frequently able to smuggle bombs and firearms aboard airplanes. After he informed the FAA of these security lapses, Dzakovic says, little was done to fix the problem.
Officials defending the agency's actions contend that many of Dzakovic's recommendations were implemented and that his Red Team was simply not told the changes had been made.
Despite often-conflicting testimony at the hearings, commission chairman Thomas Kean, a former New Jersey governor, said the panel gained considerable insight into how the attacks occurred. "We've certainly learned about the failures of the system on 9/11," he said.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States was created in November. Its hearings this week marked the panel's second such public session. Nearly two months ago in New York the commission heard from the families of the attacks' victims.
On Thursday, the members of Congress who helped create the commission complained that the Bush administration is not being forthcoming with information the panel needs for its fact-finding mission.
"I hope the administration will not abuse the principle of executive privilege to deny the commission the critical repository of day-to-day activity on issues related to the terrorist attacks," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Commission members acknowledged that they were having trouble getting some information, but expressed confidence that they eventually would get the documents they requested.
The commission is required by law to complete its investigation by May 27, 2004.
Of course not. Nobody will know the answers until there's an open and honest investigation.
But anyone courageous enough to think can see that the pertinent questions for any serious "investigation" were never asked, let alone answered, by the official investigators.
We believe in liberty and justice for all, so of course, we oppose many US government policies. This doesn't mean we're anti-American, redneck scum, pinko commies, militia members, or terrorist-sympathizers. It means we believe in freedom, as more than merely a cliché.
We believe you have the right to live your own life as you choose, and others have the equal right to live their lives as they choose. It's not complicated.
We believe freedom leads to peace, progress, and prosperity, while its opposite -- oppression -- leads to war, terrorism, poverty, and misery.
We believe it's preposterously stupid to hate people because of their appearance, their race or nationality, their religion or lack of religion, how they have sex with other consenting adults, etc. There are far more apropos reasons to hate most people.
We believe in questioning ourselves, our assumptions, each other -- and we especially believe in questioning authority (the more authority, the more questions). We believe obedience is a fine quality in dogs and young children, but not in adults.
Like America's right-wingers, we believe in
individual responsibility,
hard work to get ahead,
and stern punishment for serious crimes.
We believe big government should not be blindly trusted.
But unlike most right-wing leaders, we mean it.
Like America's left-wingers, we believe in
equal treatment under law,
war as a last (not first) resort,
and sensible stewardship of natural resources.
We believe big business should not be blindly trusted.
But unlike most left-wing leaders, we mean it.
Like libertarians, we believe it's wrong and reprehensible to arrest people for what they think, believe, look like, wear, eat, smoke, drink, inhale, inject, or otherwise do to themselves.
But unlike many libertarians, we're not obsessed with the gold standard, we don't believe incorporation is humanity's highest achievement, and we don't believe everything in life comes down to dollars and cents. We've read and enjoyed Ayn Rand's novels, but we understand that they're works of fiction.
We're skeptical, and we're sick of so-called 'journalists' who aren't skeptical at all.
A reader asks, what are our solutions? We propose no solutions except common sense, which is never common. We like the principles of democracy, and the ideals broadly described as 'American'. The US Constitution is a fine and workable framework for solutions, when it's actually read and thoughtfully understood by intelligent statesmen and women. So, no manifestos from us. We don't dream that big, and if there's one thing the world doesn't need it's yet another manifesto.
Our suggestion is: think. A fact-based instead of faith-based approach leads to solutions for most of the recurring issues of our time, from abortion to global climate change, pollution to universal health care, careful but real regulation of industry and economy, hunger, war, terror, human rights for humans not for corporations, science not religious doctrine in public schools, equal protection and prosecution under law, etc. Approach problems without glorifying stupidity, without demonizing intelligence, and answers usually come into focus.
These pages are published by Harry and Helen Highwater, happily married low-income nom de plumes and rabble-rousers from Madison, Wisconsin (with a few friends scattered around the world helping out).
We try to spotlight news that hasn't gotten enough (or appropriate) attention in American media, along with our opinions and yours.
We bang our keyboards against the wall, because it doesn't hurt as much as banging our heads.
