�The Threat Is Urgent - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com

�The Threat Is Urgent� - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com
BG: Article follows below... (wish I knew what these jokers are up to).

MSNBC.com
‘The Threat Is Urgent’
Members of the 9/11 Commission reconvene to assess the government’s progress in preventing another terror attack, and find there is much left to do.

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Jennifer Barrett
Newsweek
Updated: 10:32 a.m. ET June 9, 2005


June 8 - It’s been nearly a year since the 9/11 Commission released their final report, in which commissioners spread the blame among the FBI, CIA, Congress and the Bush administration for failing to act in time on intelligence suggesting an imminent Al Qaeda terror attack in 2001. The 567-page report, which became a national best seller, was released after a year of hearings in which some of the country’s highest-ranking officials were called to testify. Commissioners also included several recommendations to boost U.S. defenses against potential attacks—from reorganizing the intelligence community and creating a director of national intelligence, to redistributing terror funds so high-target areas get more money.

Since the report was released, some proposals, like creating a national intelligence director post, have been implemented. But many of the report's other recommendations have not been acted on, including the establishment of unified radio frequencies to facilitate communication between emergency workers nationwide and the appointment of a federal civil-liberties board to prevent abuses by intelligence and law-enforcement agencies.

Now the five Democrats and five Republicans who made up the commission have formed a new organization, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, which will assess the government’s progress in implementing its original recommendations. The group launched public hearings this week and will release a report of its findings as early as August. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke with Lee Hamilton, former Democratic congressman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, about the government’s progress—or lack of—in helping to protect the country against future terror attacks. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: It’s been nearly a year since the commission’s report came out. Why hold new hearings now?
Lee Hamilton: Back when we launched the report, it was discussed and determined that we would issue a report card in roughly a year’s time. As events moved along we [commission members] determined that a lot of things have been happening and we needed to bring ourselves up to date on the issues to produce a more credible report card. We decided to have eight briefings or hearings on several different aspects of the recommendations. We’re reviewing the progress made since 9/11, but particularly since we closed up shop last year, and looking at the capabilities of the CIA and the FBI and how the DNI [Department of National Intelligence] is coming along and the other recommendations.

Has the government done enough since the report came out to prevent another major terrorist attack?
I don’t think I’d be satisfied by saying they have done enough. They have done a lot, but they have a lot more to do. I don’t want to put a letter grade on it now—we’ll do that later. But the performance is a mixed one.

Can you give examples of the progress that has—or hasn’t—been made since last year?
There’s been a good bit of progress and a good bit of lack of progress. On setting up the national intelligence director and National Terror Center, substantial progress has been made. And legislation has been passed, but no legislation is self-executing. We wanted robust oversight by Congress of the intelligence community, but not much has been done there. There’ve been a few modest changes, but none of the fundamental changes we think are necessary. And the distribution of Homeland Security funds is not where we want them to be. Legislation is pending. A bill passed the House [of Representatives] the other day which would distribute funds on the basis of risks and vulnerabilities rather than on a political and general revenue-sharing basis. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was set up, but no appointments have been made and no money allocated. If you look at setting a radio spectrum apart so first responders would communicate, there’s been a lot of agreement and a lot of opposition. There’s nothing imminent, but I’m encouraged that in time they will act on that.

Why?
It’s pretty hard to argue against having interoperable communications among first responders.


What’s the goal of these public hearings and the report card?
We clearly would like to see additional action on the recommendations. We put a lot of effort into that, and we’ve been pleased with the responses made, but we also think a lot more needs to be done. We do want to encourage policy makers to move ahead. An educated public is part of that and the families—they have been important players and very supportive.

How has the public response been so far?
The public followed pretty carefully our hearings, and we were pleased with the amount of interest in this [one on Monday]. I don’t want to overstate the interest. A lot of the issues are quite technical, though important, so the public may not weigh in so heavily. But I still feel a lot of sympathy and support for the 9/11 Commission and its recommendations, and I think politicians and policymakers appreciate that we earned our place at the table, and they will pay attention to what we have to say.

You no longer have authority to force the Bush administration to hand over information or to make witnesses available. How do you plan to get information to make your assessment?
You’re right—we don’t have the power now that we did. Though we didn’t use it much when we had it. The only indication I have is the statement from White House that said they wanted to be cooperative. I accept that. I think we’ll get good cooperation.

When are you planning to release the report card on the government's counterterrorism efforts?
It depends on the progress of the hearings. We’re aiming for sometime around the anniversary of 9/11—late summer, early fall.

Thomas Kean was quoted as saying that "we don't have a lot of time left to act." How imminent is the threat of another attack? Are you worried?
Tom and I—and I think the other commissioners—have always felt the threat is urgent. I certainly continue to think that now. We are worried about complacency. Since 9/11, there has not been an attack on American soil, and that lends a certain support for complacency. But at the same time, the number of terror attacks worldwide has gone up pretty substantially.

What do we know now about Al Qaeda and the chances it will strike again on U.S. soil?
Al Qaeda and radical jihadists have the intent to kill us; they want to kill us. The steps we have taken have indeed put them in some disarray. But the threat is still out there. We are confident of the intent—we’re less sure of what their capabilities are now. But one characteristic we found in the investigation is that they are very patient. The 9/11 attacks happened eight years after their first attack on the World Trade Center. They spent three to four years planning for 9/11 itself. We know the enemy is sophisticated, patient, persistent, and knowledgeable. The commission interviewed about 1,200 people, and I don’t think a single one said there is no threat. They all said we would be hit again.

Where would you like to see us a year from now?
I’d like to see all our recommendations adopted by then.


© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8149051/site/newsweek/