DOCSLIB.ORG

Where Was the Government? in Inquiry Into the Events of September 11, 2001

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Where Was the Government? in Inquiry Into the Events of September 11, 2001 Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 8-2008 Where Was the Government? In Inquiry into the Events of September 11, 2001 Elizabeth A. Bradshaw Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Politics and Social Change Commons Recommended Citation Bradshaw, Elizabeth A., "Where Was the Government? In Inquiry into the Events of September 11, 2001" (2008). Master's Theses. 4146. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/4146 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHERE WAS THE GOVERNMENT? AN INQUIRY INTO THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 by Elizabeth A. Bradshaw A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College .. in partial fulfillmentof the requirements forthe Degreeof Master of Arts Department of Sociology WesternMichigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan August 2008 Copyright by Elizabeth A. 'Bradshaw 2008 "All truth passes throughthree stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident" - Arthur Schopenhauer ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to the support, guidance and criticisms "ofmy chairperson Dr. G�egory Howard and committee members Dr. Ronald Kramer and -Dr. Barry Goetz, this project has been a surprisingly educational and· enjoyable research experience. Without the time, effort and most importantly encouragement so generously lent by my colleagues, friends and family I would have never seen this behemoth of a thesis through to its completion. Deserving of a very special acknowledgement is Mark Ferguson for all of his suggestions, thoughts and feedback throughout this entire escapade. To the diverse group of concerned citizens, academics and victims' families who dare to question the actions of the United States government in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, your efforts exemplify patriotism. Ask questions, demand answers. Elizabeth A. Bradshaw 11 ' . WHERE WAS THE GOVERNMENT? AN INQUIRY INTO THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Elizabeth A. Bradshaw, M.A. WesternMichigan University, 2008 The terrorist attacks of �eptember 11, 2001 have forever changed the geopolitical landscape. Yet despite the significance of such an event, those working in the field of state crime have been reluctant to investigate the role of the United States government in failing to prevent the attacks. Utilizing the fivecriteria of state crime put forth by Kauzlarich, Mullins and Matthews (2003), the ._actions and inactions of the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the Federal Aviation Administration are examined. Drawing on the testimonies of government officials from each of the five agencies to the 9/11 Commission, evidence suggests that key officials failed to act on available information to prevent the attacks therefore constituting an explicit crime of omission. Most significantly, the National Security Council composed of top Bush administration officials, who were charged with the task of coordinating a response to such a threat, neglected to take crucial actions which may have prevented the attacks. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................ : .................................... : .... 11 CHAPTER · I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1 II. LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................. _ 3 Legalistic and Expanded Legalistic..................................................... 5 Human RightsDefinitions ...... i.......................................................... :. 9 InternationalLaw ................................ ;................................................ 11 State Crime and September 11, 2001 .................................................. 14 Crimes of Omission............................................................................. 16 III. DATA ANDMETHODS... ........................................................................... 21 Data ...................................................... ; ............................................-. 21 The National Commission on TerroristAttacks Upon the United States ................................................................................................... 23 Methods............................................................................................... 29 Analytic Strategy .................................................... :;:;;........................ 31 IV. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL............................................................ 35 Testimony of Condoleezza Rice.......................................................... 35 Assignedor Implied Trust or Duty...................................................... 35 Action or Inaction on Behalf of State or State Agencies..................... 37 Summary.............................................................................................. 42 iii Table of Contents-continued Testimony of Richard Clarke .............................................................. 43 Assignedor Implied Trust or Duty...................................................... 43 Action or Inaction on Behalf of State or State Agencies..................... 44 Summary..................................................... :........................................ 49 National Security Council Summary................................................... 50 CSG Reporting to Deputies Committee.............................................. 51 V. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY...................................................... 54 Testimonies of George Tenet and John McLaughlin .......................... 55 Assignedor Implied Trust or Duty...................................................... 55 Action or Inaction on Behalf of State or State Agencies..................... 56 Summary.............................................................................................. 62 Testimony of Cofer Black................................................................... 63 Assignedor Implied Trust or Duty...................................................... 63 Action or Inaction on Behalf of State or State Agencies..................... 65 Summary........................................................................ ;............... :..... 69 Central Intelligence Agency Summary................................................ 70 "VI. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.............................................. 74 Testimony of Louis J. Freeh................................................................ 75 Assignedor Implied Trust or Duty...................................................... 75 Action or Inaction on Behalf of State or State Agencies..................... · 75 Summary.............................................................................................. 80 Testimony of Thomas J. Pickard......................................................... 81 iv Table of Contents-continued Assignedor Implied Trust or Duty................................. ;.................... 81 Action or Inaction on Behalf of State or State Agencies..................... 82 Summary.......................................................................................... .-... _ 87 Federal Bureau of Investigation Summary:......................................... 88 VII. NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND.................. 94 Testimonies of Craig McKinley, Larry Arnold and AlanScott .......... 96 Assignedor Implied Trust or Duty...................................................... 96 Action or Inaction on Behalf of State or State Agencies..................... 97 Summary.............................................................................................. 107 Testimonies of Richard/Myers, Charles Joseph Leidig, Ralph Eberhart and Larry.Arnold................................................................... 109 Assignedor Implied Trust or Duty...................................................... 109 Action or Inaction on Behalf of State or State Agencies..................... 110 Summary.............................................................................................. 120 North American Aerospace DefenseCommand Summary................. 124 VIII. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION.............................................. 133 Testimonies of Jane Garvey and Kenneth Mead................................. 134 Assignedor Implied Trust or Duty ..........................�;........................ 134 Action or Inaction on Behalf of State or State Agencies..................... 135 Summary.............................................................................................. 142 Testimony of Bogdan Dzakovic.......................................................... 145 Assignedor Implied Trust or Duty...................................................... 145 Action or Inaction on Behalf of State or State Agencies..................... 146 V Table of Contents-continued Summary.............................................................................................. 150 Testimonies of Monte Belger, JeffGriffith, John White and Benedict Sliney...................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Review of the FBI's Handling of Intelligence Information Related To
    U. S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General A Review of the FBI's 1Uantlli.ng of Intelligence Information Re1ade:d to the September 11 Attacks (Novennl~er2004) Released Piublicly June 2006 Office (ofAthe Inspector General NOTE This report is an unclassified version of the full report that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) completed in 2004 and provided to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Justice, the Congress, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. The OIG’s full report is classified at the Top Secret/SCI level. At the request of members of Congress, after issuing the full report the OIG created an unclassified version of the report. However, because the unclassified version included information about the FBI’s investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, and because of Moussaoui’s trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the rules of that Court, the OIG could not release the unclassified version of the report without the Court’s permission until the trial was completed. In June 2005, the Court gave the OIG permission to release the sections of the unclassified report that did not discuss Moussaoui. Therefore, at that time the OIG released publicly a version of the unclassified report that did not contain Chapter 4 (the OIG’s review of the Mousssaoui matter), as well as other references to Moussaoui throughout the report. The Moussaoui case concluded on May 4, 2006, when the Court sentenced Moussaoui to life in prison.
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar No. 32
    Calendar No. 32 108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 1st Session SENATE 108–40 AMENDMENT OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978 TO ALLOW SURVEILLANCE OF NON-UNITED STATES PERSONS WHO ENGAGE IN OR PREPARE FOR INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM WITHOUT AFFILIATION WITH A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OR INTERNATIONAL TER- RORIST GROUP APRIL 29, 2003.—Ordered to be printed Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS [To accompany S. 113] [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 113) to exclude United States persons from the definition of ‘‘foreign power’’ under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 relating to international terrorism, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendment, and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. CONTENTS Page I. Purpose ........................................................................................................... 2 II. Background on the Legislation ..................................................................... 2 III. Need for the Legislation ................................................................................ 2 IV. Hearings ......................................................................................................... 6 V. Committee Consideration .............................................................................. 6 VI. Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Chapter 4 Building International Will and Capacity to Counter Terrorism The Department of State engages diplomatically with for- eign governments and in international and regional fora to accomplish the US Government’s first priority — protect- ing Americans at home and abroad. The Department of State’s diplomatic efforts help build the political will and operational skills of foreign governments to combat terror. Many countries are committed allies in the global war on terrorism. Some, however, need train- ing and resources to develop stronger institutions and capabilities. The Department of State’s counterterrorism efforts are an essential component in the success of US military, law enforcement, intelligence, and financial ac- tivities in the global fight against terrorism. Multilateral and regional organizations are also a key plat- form for developing broad international support for the adoption and implementation of policies, strategies, and “best practices” in combating terrorism and financing of terrorist activities. The Department of State works actively with foreign governments to urge adoption of all 12 inter- national counterterrorism conventions, as well as adherence to and implementation of UNSCR 1373, which imposes binding obligations on all states to suppress and prevent terrorist financing, improve their border controls, enhance information sharing and law enforcement coop- eration, suppress terrorist recruitment, and deny terrorists safe haven. Antiterrorism Assistance Program Ambassador J. Cofer Black, former US State Department Coordinator Congress authorized the Antiterrorism Assistance (ATA) Pro- for Counterterrorism, during a news conference at the IV Regular gram in 1983 as part of a major initiative against international Session of the Organization of American States Inter-American terrorism.
    [Show full text]
  • 9-11 Commission Hrng 4 13 04 2
    PANEL ONE OF THE TENTH HEARING OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES RE: "LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY" THOMAS H. KEAN, CHAIR; LEE H. HAMILTON, VICE CHAIR PHILIP D. ZELIKOW PRESENTS STAFF STATEMENT: "LAW ENFORCEMENT, COUNTERTERRORISM, AND INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION IN THE UNITED STATES PRIOR TO 9/11" WITNESS: LOUIS J. FREEH, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE FBI 9:01 A.M. EDT, TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2004 MR. KEAN: (Sounds gavel.) Good morning. As chair of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States, I hereby convene this commission's 10th public hearing. The hearing will run all today and tomorrow. Our focus for the next two days will be "Law Enforcement and the Intelligence Community." As we did with our two prior sets of hearings this calendar year, we precede each series of witnesses with a statement from the Commission staff. These statements are informed by the work of the Commissioners, as well as the staff, and they represent the staff's best efforts to reconstruct the factual record of what happened. Judgments and recommendations are for commissioners and the Commission to make, and of course we'll do that in the course of our work, and most definitively and finally in our final report. Viewers, by the way, who are watching at home can obtain staff statements at www.9-11commission.gov. Before we begin, let me make just a brief request to members of the audience who have taken the time to be with us today. We're going to be hearing from a lot of witnesses in the course of the next two days.
    [Show full text]
  • Indien – China – USA: Das Neue Mächtedreieck Asiens
    Indien – China – USA: Das neue Mächtedreieck Asiens Heinrich Kreft1 1 Die Entstehung eines neuen Mächtedreiecks in Asien seit Ende des Kalten Krieges Das Ende des Kalten Krieges führte nicht nur in Europa zu erheblichen politischen Veränderungen und Machtverschiebungen, sondern auch in Asien. Hinzu kam, dass zeitgleich mehrere Länder und Regionen Asiens einen beispiellosen wirtschaftlichen Boom erlebten. 1.1 Der Untergang der Sowjetunion Der wichtigste Einzelfaktor für die Veränderung der politischen Landschaft in Asien war der Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion und das sich daran anschließende Schwin- den des russischen Einflusses in Südasien. Die UdSSR war lange Zeit der wichtigste Verbündete Indiens gewesen, festgeschrieben im indisch-sowjetischen Vertrag von 1971, in dem Moskau Indiens Schutz garantierte. Allerdings wurde dieses Abkom- men bereits Ende der 1980er-Jahre durch die Bemühungen Gorbatschows unter- höhlt, die sowjetischen Beziehungen zu China zu verbessern. Die Russische Förde- ration als Rechtsnachfolger der Sowjetunion war Anfang der 1990er-Jahre kaum noch in der Lage, den sowjetischen Einfluss in Südasien aufrecht zu erhalten. Der ökonomische Niedergang Moskaus ging auch nach dem Zusammenbruch der UdSSR weiter, die russische Marine war nie in der Lage, die Rolle ihrer sowjeti- schen Vorgängerin im Indischen Ozean zu übernehmen. Die indisch-russischen Beziehungen laborieren auch heute noch an den Folgen der Auflösung der Sowjetunion, mit der Indien seinen bis dahin wichtigsten politi- schen und auch ökonomischen Partner verloren
    [Show full text]
  • 9/11 Report”), July 2, 2004, Pp
    Final FM.1pp 7/17/04 5:25 PM Page i THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT Final FM.1pp 7/17/04 5:25 PM Page v CONTENTS List of Illustrations and Tables ix Member List xi Staff List xiii–xiv Preface xv 1. “WE HAVE SOME PLANES” 1 1.1 Inside the Four Flights 1 1.2 Improvising a Homeland Defense 14 1.3 National Crisis Management 35 2. THE FOUNDATION OF THE NEW TERRORISM 47 2.1 A Declaration of War 47 2.2 Bin Ladin’s Appeal in the Islamic World 48 2.3 The Rise of Bin Ladin and al Qaeda (1988–1992) 55 2.4 Building an Organization, Declaring War on the United States (1992–1996) 59 2.5 Al Qaeda’s Renewal in Afghanistan (1996–1998) 63 3. COUNTERTERRORISM EVOLVES 71 3.1 From the Old Terrorism to the New: The First World Trade Center Bombing 71 3.2 Adaptation—and Nonadaptation— ...in the Law Enforcement Community 73 3.3 . and in the Federal Aviation Administration 82 3.4 . and in the Intelligence Community 86 v Final FM.1pp 7/17/04 5:25 PM Page vi 3.5 . and in the State Department and the Defense Department 93 3.6 . and in the White House 98 3.7 . and in the Congress 102 4. RESPONSES TO AL QAEDA’S INITIAL ASSAULTS 108 4.1 Before the Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania 108 4.2 Crisis:August 1998 115 4.3 Diplomacy 121 4.4 Covert Action 126 4.5 Searching for Fresh Options 134 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Inquiry
    REPORT OF THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 – BY THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE S. REPT. NO. 107- 351 107TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION H. REPT. NO. 107-792 JOINT INQUIRY INTO INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES BEFORE AND AFTER THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 ___________________ REPORT OF THE U.S. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND U.S. HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS DECEMBER 2002 S. REPT. NO. 107- 351 107TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION H. REPT. NO. 107-792 JOINT INQUIRY INTO INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES BEFORE AND AFTER THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 ___________________ REPORT OF THE U.S. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND U.S. HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS DECEMBER 2002 Foreword This is the declassified version of the Final Report of the Joint Inquiry that was approved and filed with the House of Representatives and the Senate on December 20, 2002. With the exception of portions that were released to the public previously (e.g., the additional views of Members, the GAO Anthrax Report, etc.), this version has been declassified by the Intelligence Community prior to its public release. That review was for classification purposes only, and does not indicate Intelligence Community agreement with the accuracy of this report, or concurrence with its factual findings or conclusions. At appropriate points in the report, relevant information that developed after the report was filed, or that has appeared in other public sources, has been inserted and is denoted with an asterisk (*) and an accompanying footnote.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Edit Final
    ABSTRACT You are Who You Fight: The CIA, Covert Action, and National Security Charissa Huntzinger Director: Peter Campbell Ph.D. Hollywood thrillers, conspiracy theories and political discourse, often depict the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an uncontrollable, enigmatic organization populat- ed by James Bonds. The agency’s mandate, set out in the National Security Act of 1947, tells a different story that is often overlooked. In essence, the US government designed the CIA as a center of intelligence analysis and not a cloak and dagger outfit. Neverthe- less, the CIA did develop a covert action branch and from the Cold War to the War on Terror, the CIA has increasingly relied on this operational component. But where did this branch come from and how and why has it adapted or failed to adapt to changes in the international environment? Through two case studies, this thesis evaluates the efficacy of bureaucratic, organizational cultural, and realist theories for explaining the evolution of covert action within the CIA. APPROVED BY DIRECTOR OF HONORS THESIS: ________________________________________________ Dr. Peter Campbell, Political Science APPROVED BY THE HONORS PROGRAM: ________________________________________________ Dr. Elizabeth Corey, Director. DATE: ________________________ YOU ARE WHO YOU FIGHT: THE CIA, COVERT ACTION, AND NATIONAL SECURITY A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Baylor University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Program By Charissa Huntzinger Waco, TX May 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction . 1 Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework . 6 Chapter 3: The Early Cold War . 15 Chapter 4: The War on Terror . 38 Chapter 5: Conclusion . 54 Bibliography . 65 ii CHAPTER ONE Introduction The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is a generally misunderstood arm of the American national security Apparatus.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Intelligence in Covert Operatives
    OVERT ACCEPTANCE: CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE IN COVERT OPERATIVES CHIP MICHAEL BUCKLEY A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Mercyhurst University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN APPLIED INTELLIGENCE RIDGE SCHOOL FOR INTELLIGENCE STUDIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE MERCYHURST UNIVERSITY ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA JANUARY 2015 RIDGE SCHOOL FOR INTELLIGENCE STUDIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE MERCYHURST UNIVERSITY ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA OVERT ACCEPTANCE: CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE IN COVERT OPERATIVES A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Mercyhurst University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN APPLIED INTELLIGENCE Submitted By: CHIP MICHAEL BUCKLEY Certificate of Approval: ___________________________________ Stephen Zidek, M.A. Assistant Professor The Ridge School of Intelligence Studies and Information Science ___________________________________ James G. Breckenridge, Ph.D. Associate Professor The Ridge School of Intelligence Studies and Information Science ___________________________________ Phillip J. Belfiore, Ph.D. Vice President Office of Academic Affairs January 2015 Copyright © 2015 by Chip Michael Buckley All rights reserved. iii DEDICATION To my father. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge a number of important individuals who have provided an extraordinary amount of support throughout this process. The faculty at Mercyhurst University, particularly Professor Stephen Zidek, provided invaluable guidance when researching and developing this thesis. My friends and classmates also volunteered important ideas and guidance throughout this time. Lastly, my family’s support, patience, and persistent inquiries regarding my progress cannot be overlooked. v ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS Overt Acceptance: Cultural Intelligence in Covert Operatives A Critical Examination By Chip Michael Buckley Master of Science in Applied Intelligence Mercyhurst University, 2014 Professor S.
    [Show full text]
  • Prepared Statement of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
    Secretary of State Colin L. Powell Written Remarks Submitted to: The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States 23 March 2004 Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you regarding the events leading up to and following the murderous terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It is my hope, as I know it is yours, that through the hard work of this Commission, and other bodies like it, our country can improve the way we wage the war on terror and, in particular, better protect our homeland and the American people. I am pleased to have with me today Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage. Secretary Armitage was sworn in on March 26, two months into the Administration and he has been intimately involved in the interagency deliberations on our counterterrorism policies. He also participated in National Security Council meetings whenever I was on travel. Mr. Chairman, I leave Washington this evening to represent President Bush and the American people at the memorial service in Madrid, Spain honoring the over 200 victims of the terrorists attacks of March 11, 2004. With deep sympathy and solidarity, our heart goes out to their loved ones and to the people of Spain. And just last Thursday, in the garden of our embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, I presided at a memorial service in honor of two State Department family members, Barbara Green and her daughter Kristen Wormsley, who were killed two years ago by terrorists while they worshipped in church on a bright, beautiful spring morning.
    [Show full text]
  • The 9/11 Commission Report
    Final1-4.4pp 7/17/04 9:12 AM Page 108 4 RESPONSES TO AL QAEDA’S INITIAL ASSAULTS 4.1 BEFORE THE BOMBINGS IN KENYA AND TANZANIA Although the 1995 National Intelligence Estimate had warned of a new type of terrorism, many officials continued to think of terrorists as agents of states (Saudi Hezbollah acting for Iran against Khobar Towers) or as domestic crim- inals (Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City).As we pointed out in chapter 3, the White House is not a natural locus for program management. Hence, gov- ernment efforts to cope with terrorism were essentially the work of individ- ual agencies. President Bill Clinton’s counterterrorism Presidential Decision Directives in 1995 (no. 39) and May 1998 (no. 62) reiterated that terrorism was a national security problem,not just a law enforcement issue.They reinforced the author- ity of the National Security Council (NSC) to coordinate domestic as well as foreign counterterrorism efforts, through Richard Clarke and his interagency Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG). Spotlighting new concerns about unconventional attacks, these directives assigned tasks to lead agencies but did not differentiate types of terrorist threats.Thus,while Clarke might prod or push agencies to act, what actually happened was usually decided at the State Depart- ment, the Pentagon, the CIA, or the Justice Department.The efforts of these agencies were sometimes energetic and sometimes effective.Terrorist plots were disrupted and individual terrorists were captured.But the United States did not, before 9/11, adopt as a clear strategic objective the elimination of al Qaeda. Early Efforts against Bin Ladin Until 1996, hardly anyone in the U.S.government understood that Usama Bin Ladin was an inspirer and organizer of the new terrorism.
    [Show full text]
  • Oversight Hearing on Counterterrorism Hearing
    S. HRG. 107–920 OVERSIGHT HEARING ON COUNTERTERRORISM HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 6, 2002 Serial No. J–107–83 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 86–517 PDF WASHINGTON : 2003 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:07 Oct 06, 2003 Jkt 089324 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\86517.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware STROM THURMOND, South Carolina HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JON KYL, Arizona CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York MIKE DEWINE, Ohio RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama MARIA CANTWELL, Washington SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky BRUCE A. COHEN, Majority Chief Counsel and Staff Director SHARON PROST, Minority Chief Counsel MAKAN DELRAHIM, Minority Staff Director (II) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:07 Oct 06, 2003 Jkt 089324 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\86517.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delware ..............
    [Show full text]