I think you are absolutely spot on on everything you said. After 1989 our attitudes toward national security became so lax that it truly is a wonder something much worse has not happened. The attempts to safeguard nuclear, chemical and biological stockpiles as the USSR was imploding were half-hearted at best and the failure to recognize the threat of militant Islam ( when they certainly were doing nothing to hide it ) shows just how culturally blind we can be ( and how we love to ignore people like Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, John Gaddis and Robert Conquest, who actually do know what they are talking about )

And your point about discussing some things so openly is particularly good. This also applies to debates about what we do with prisoners and our rules of engagement in combat areas. Public debate sounds very good and makes everyone feel good about themselves but it gets people killed. It is often very useful for your enemy to be somewhat unsure about just how far you will go.

And then there is the issue of the public's right to know. i am sure in our present climate the exact time and place of D Day would have been required to be published in the NY Times ( and I'm sure Pinch Sulzberger would have cheerfully published it ) The "news story" that we could monitor Bin Laden's satellite phone was a real scoop and I'm sure the reporter is very proud. It was also treason - the kind a rational society shoots people for.

Since a good portion of "the public" barely knows where France is, let along the Waziristan region of Pakistan, I think the public's right to live without fear of some madman blowing up their local shopping mall trumps their right to know about things that truly do compromise legitimate efforts to protect them.

>>>>So we have a choice between criminal plot and criminal negligence.
>>>
>>>One of the things nagging me from the start was that 3 planes hit their target and a fourth one crash landed - and it became known that the passengers were the one responsible for aborting a fourth crash.
>>>
>>>Where was the air force ? The explanation was that they could see/watch something coming to the US, but had never considered to watch their own air space. Such an explanation must be true in my book, or one of the retired guys would babble about "we could at least find xxx planes in 198x" - it is ridiculous, it is probably true.
>>>
>>
>>The movie "United 93" is highly recommended. It covers the history of that flight on 9/11 in considerable detail and avoids most of the cliches of Hollywood movies. Most of the cast are unknown or little known, including some who were actual pilots, FAA workers, etc. on that day. Air traffic controllers first had to recognize there was a problem, then identify which of the hundreds of planes in flight might also be hijacked, then try to do something about it. The military was involved as well but they faced the same issues. And coordination between the FAA and the military was poor. Plus the President's approval was needed to shoot down a commercial aircraft.
>>
>Still, the scenarios people were "prepared" for were not on the mark. And after the 80ies I had expected better plans to exist: remember the 007 shootdown by the russians when Reagan was head honcho ? But after the Rust/Read Square adventure the worst case scenarios in terms of cost vs. possible death yield and probability of success I could think of involved rented business jets and chemical weapons.
>
>After a few dry runs renting such craft without any incriminating evidence (via Mexico or Canada) you enter once with a few canisters, perhaps even with some contraption saving the gas from fire from a possible strike by surface to air missile. Probably much higher head yield and almost impossible to defend against. Thoses craft are no StuKa's dropping almost vertical to the target (and there probably is a no-fly-over-area atop the white house) but you can do the math in your head: how long will it take flying at 800 KM/H to get into reach ? And even if they are downed within a certain radius you will get satisfying quality of heads in your head count just by proximity to a power center. I'ld think defense would at least TRY to account for such a clear window of opportunity.
>
>In germany there is quarreling about the legalities of shooting down a capered airliner heading for inner cities (stupid justices: just what we need, lure the terrorists to our targets because we OPENLY discuss that as of now our airforce MUST NOT shoot down such an airline if there is a chance that uninvolved passengers/hostages are on the plane. Discussing such things openly is not only neglicant but stupid in my eyes, so we are clearly no better than the US even after 9/11.
>
>thomas