http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5497606/ NBC: Why al-Qaida might have canceled 9/11 attack Report: Plotters would have aborted plans had they known of Moussaoui's arrest NEW YORK - Al-Qaida might have called off the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks on the United States had the plot’s masterminds known of the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker, in the United States in mid-August 2001, according to the report issued by the 9/11 commission. The 567-page report, the result of a 20-month investigation, details a host of missteps by government agencies and recommends the appointment of a new intelligence czar to help avoid future mistakes. Moussaoui, a French-Moroccan radical who is believed to have been training as a pilot for the attacks, was arrested in Minnesota on Aug. 17 for overstaying his visa. In a footnote to the commission’s report, issued Thursday, the investigators said that chief organizer Ramzi Binalshibh stated in a Feb. 14, 2004, interview with U.S. interrogators that had “KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the al-Qaida operations chief] known that Moussaoui had been arrested, he would have canceled the attacks." Based on the CIA interrogation of Binalshibh on Feb. 14, as well as others on Nov. 7, 2002, and Feb. 27, 2003, as well as an interrogation of Mohammed on July 2, 2003, the report draws the conclusion that "publicity about Moussaoui's arrest and a possible hijacking threat might have derailed the plot."
This last line is further support for the government's terror rating system. Instead of immediately dismissing increased threat levels due to playing politics/manipulating polls, you can see that changing the threat level can deter terrorists from acting. I wish some people would remember that the next time Ridge moves the threat level.
I have no problem with the terror threat rating system. But don't come on my TV and say "we have credible evidence of a possible attack, but we don't know who, what, when, where or how, and we're not going to raise the threat level."
I'm not asking to jeopardize a source. If there's a threat, tell me what it is, where it's going to take place and when. Isn't that what this article is saying could have happened if they would have been a bit more forthcoming with the info?
How does changing a color threaten a source of info? And, of course - yes, it would be safer if there is a probable target, wouldn't it? I and thousands of people would know not to go there, thus saving lives. Right?
The administration seems to care little for jeopardizing sources. They exposed the name of an intel agent who may have had countless sources, and have done nothing to put a halt the person who committed that felonyl. Obviously jeopardizing sources isn't a real high priority in our war on terror.
