Originally posted by Saxman
As pointed out, the security we had in the country prior to 9/11 WAS sufficient to have prevented it...The failure was in the people MANAGING that system...The capabilities of the terrorists have NOT changed. Chemical, biological and nuclear/dirty bomb attacks were as much of a threat BEFORE 9/11 as they are now.
First statement--Wrong. WTC was attacked once before. Furthermore, if you go way back, there are many instances of terrorist activity looking to impact American interests around the globe. A lack of potential terrorist activity over the 60 years previously mentioned does not constitute a situation where "existing laws" prevented terrorist activity inside the U.S. If the terrorists don't attempt action inside the U.S., that's not the same as saying they were thwarted in their previous attempts to conduct such as a result of legacy national security law.
Second statement--Wrong, this time IMO. Failure to take decisive action after the U.S. embassy was overrun in Pakistan back in the early '70's was the beginning of the emboldenment. This exacerbated the situation in Iran some years later, as the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran would not have been attempted had we demonstrated the willingness to respond violently and decisively after the Pakistani incident. Following that was our flaccid response to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit. Following that was our flaccid response after the Blackhawk Down incident. Following that was our flaccid response after the string of Khobar Towers/WTC Part 1/USS Cole incidents. Our lack of decisive action after each of these incidents, which spanned 5 presidencies (by both parties) encouraged and emboldened those terrorists. The last 3 and possibly 4 incidents listed were committed by the same people. Furthermore, and someone with the specifics can either confirm or correct me here--There were pre-Patriot Act laws that precluded the CIA from supplying information to the FBI as a result of legalism regarding intelligence agencies interfering with law-enforcement functions. If the General Counsel of the CIA tells the Director that it could be construed as illegal to supply the FBI with certain types of intelligence, the Director may not do it. That's a problem with the system, pre-attack.
Last statement--Wrong. Certainly in the immediate time period before the 9/11 attack, special weapon threat was possibly equivalent (or greater) than it is now. However, going back to the 70's again, the capabilities of terrorist organizations up until the 90's was limited strictly to conventional types of attacks, and even then, merely small arms/explosives type stuff. Small bombs, hijackings, and shootings were the norm with respect to perceived and actual capability. Only after certain states saw value in adding the potential of special weapons as a terrorist capability did the special weapon threat begin to be considered credible. You could argue that this was a fairly narrow time span, starting with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, with a mature threat of special weapons evolving sometime in the mid-90's.
This is a much more interesting discussion when the political lines are omitted, as this is a very complex issue that has evolved over the course of both parties' and several presidents' tenure in the White House.
