The U.S. is at great risk for more terrorist attacks because Congress and the White House have failed to enact several strong security measures, members of the former Sept. 11 commission said Sunday. "It's not a priority for the government right now," said the former chairman, Thomas Kean, ahead of the group's release of a report Monday assessing how well its recommendations have been followed.
"More than four years after 9/11 ... people are not paying attention," the former Republican governor of New Jersey said. "God help us if we have another attack."
Added Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic vice chairman of the commission: "We believe that another attack will occur. It's not a question of if. We are not as well-prepared as we should be." The five Republicans and five Democrats on the commission, whose recommendations are now promoted through a privately funded group known as the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, conclude that the government deserves "more Fs than As" in responding to their 41 suggested changes.
Since the commission's final report in July 2004, the government has enacted the centerpiece proposal to create a national intelligence director. But the government has stalled on other ideas, including improving communication among emergency responders and shifting federal terrorism-fighting money so it goes to states based on risk level. "There is a lack of a sense of urgency," Hamilton said. "There are so many competing priorities. We've got three wars going on: one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq and the war against terror. And it's awfully hard to keep people focused on something like this."
National security adviser Stephen Hadley said Sunday that President Bush is committed to putting in place most of the commission's recommendations. "Obviously, as we've said all along, we are safer, but not yet safe. There is more to do," Hadley said on Fox News Sunday. Ex-commissioners contended the government has been remiss by failing to act more quickly.
Kean said the Transportation Security Administration was wrong to announce changes last week that will allow airline passengers to carry small scissors and some sharp tools. He also said the agency, by now, should have consolidated databases of passenger information into a single "terror watch list" to aid screening. "I don't think we have to go backward here," said Kean, who appeared with Hamilton on NBC's Meet the Press. "They're talking about using more money for random checks. Terrorists coming through the airport may still not be spotted," Kean said.
Kean and Hamilton urged Congress to pass spending bills that would allow police and fire to communicate across radio spectrums and to reallocate money so that Washington and New York, which have more people and symbolic landmarks, could receive more for terrorism defense. Both bills have stalled in Congress, in part over the level of spending and turf fights over which states should get the most dollars. "This is a no-brainer," said Hamilton, a former Indiana congressman. "From the standpoint of responding to a disaster, the key responders must be able to talk with one another. They could not do it on 9/11, and as a result of that, lives were lost. They could not do it at (Hurricane) Katrina. They still cannot do it."
As for the dollar dispute, Hamilton said, "We know what terrorists want to do: they want to kill as many Americans as possible. That means you protect the Washington monument and United States Capitol, and not other places." Congress established the commission in 2002 to investigate government missteps that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Its 567-page final report, which became a national best seller, does not blame Bush or former President Clinton for missteps contributing to the attacks but did say they failed to make anti-terrorism a higher priority. The commission also concluded that the Sept. 11 attack would not be the nation's last, noting that al-Qaeda had tried for at least 10 years to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Calling the country "less safe than we were 18 months ago," former Democratic commissioner Jamie Gorelick said Sunday the government's failure to move forward on the recommendations makes the U.S. more vulnerable. She cited the failure to ensure that foreign nations are upgrading security measures to stop proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical materials, as well as the FBI's resistance to overhauling its anti-terror programs.
"You remember the sense of urgency that we all felt in the summer of 2004. The interest has faded," the Washington lawyer said on ABC's Good Morning America. "You could see that in the aftermath of Katrina. We assumed that our government would be able to do what it needed to do and it didn't do it."
PRES. BUSH: These two men bring a commonsense approach to how to move forward. And the report that they are about to present to me puts out some very constructive recommendations, and I look forward to studying their recommendations and look forward to working with responsible parties within my administration to move forward on those recommendations. (End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: "To move forward on recommendations." In all honesty, Governor, what grade would you give the president for adopting and enacting your recommendations?
FMR. GOV. THOMAS KEAN, (R-N.J.; Chair, 9-11 Commission): We're going to grade everybody. We're not going to grade the president. But what we've said is that we've not moved forward to the extent we should. We've made some progress, very little progress in some areas. It's not a priority for the government right now. You don't see the Congress or the president talking about the public safety is number one, as we think it should be, and a lot of the things we need to do really to prevent another 9/11 just simply aren't being done by the president or by the Congress.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that you were being, in effect, used by the president during the campaign with that photo op?
MR. KEAN: Oh, I don't think we were being used. He accepted our report. We were happy he did. What we're concerned about now is that these recommendations more than four years after 9/11 are still not being done. People are not paying attention to them. And if they're not put into place, we are very vulnerable as a people to another attack.
MR. RUSSERT: You both wrote an op-ed piece September 11, 2005, just two months ago, and this is what you pointed out. One, "Allocate `first responder' funding on the basis of risk, not politics." Two, "Complete critical risk assessments mandated by the Intelligence Reform Act." Three, "Provide reliable radio spectrum for emergency responders." Four, "Establish a unified Incident Command System."
Congressman Hamilton, has any of that been done?
MR. HAMILTON: Well, certainly not enough. On the question of setting aside part of the radio spectrum for the first responders, there's an important bill pending right now in the Congress. We hope it will be approved within the next few days. It really approaches scandal to think that four years after 9/11, the police and the fire cannot talk to one another at the scene of the disaster.
MR. RUSSERT: We should--tell our viewers about that. The District of Columbia police and fire could not speak to Arlington, Virginia, Alexandria, Virginia, over at the Pentagon. During Katrina, local, state and federal officials could not communicate with each other because the bands on which they were trying to communicate were not compatible.
MR. HAMILTON: Absolutely. This is a no-brainer. From the standpoint of responding to a disaster, the key responders must be able to talk with one another. They could not do it on 9/11, and as a result of that, lives were lost. They could not do it at Katrina. They still cannot do it. And we think this is-- must be urgently considered and approved. Now, that's not the only problem.
MR. RUSSERT: Will it get fixed this week?
MR. HAMILTON: I don't know. MR. KEAN: No. MR. HAMILTON: It's a close call. MR. KEAN: No, it's not... MR. HAMILTON: We don't know. MR. KEAN: It's not going to be fixed this week because the best hope we have is a bill that fixes it by '09. MR. HAMILTON: Oh, yes.
MR. KEAN: Now, '09 is not soon enough. Actually, the leader on this has been your previous guest, John McCain, who understands this issue, has been fighting for it, but the special interests have prevailed up to this point.
MR. RUSSERT: How about first responder funding on the basis of risk, not politics? People in--per capita spending in Wyoming, more than New York, and--which is higher risk for terrorists.
MR. HAMILTON: We've had some of this money spent to air condition garbage trucks. We've had some of the money spent for armor for dogs. This money is being distributed as if it's general revenue sharing. We want that money distributed according to the best information we have about the risks and the vulnerabilities. The money should flow to protect the lives of the American people. It is not now being done and should be done.
MR. RUSSERT: Who's accountable? Who's accountable?
MR. HAMILTON: Right now, the Congress is accountable. The president supports our recommendation. The Congress has this before it this week as well, and we think it's critically important it be adopted.
MR. RUSSERT: Complete critical risk assessments mandated by the Intelligence Reform Act. You ask that Homeland Security go out and look at nuclear power plants and chemical plants and make a risk assessment. Why hasn't that been done?
MR. KEAN: Well, they did something that's totally inadequate. It doesn't set the priorities out, it just sets basically vague guidelines what the priorities should be. And you can't allocate funds properly until you know what your risks are, and that's what we're trying to get people to do, and that's mandated by the law and they just have not done it. When you put these things together--right now, by the way, the bill we just talked about is a 5-5 vote in the Conference Committee in the Senate. If one more senator votes the right way, we can get risk assessment done. So we're very close to that one. It'll be decided this week.
MR. HAMILTON: See, the key problem here is making hard choices. What we do is continue to talk about hard choices. We don't make the hard choices, and the hard choices require us to do what Tom said, and that is make distinctions, the priorities: This needs to be protected, that we don't have sufficient funds to protect.
MR. RUSSERT: Washington, D.C., is a higher risk, New York City is a higher risk than perhaps a rural community in Utah or in Wyoming.
MR. KEAN: That's absolutely right.
MR. HAMILTON: We know what the terrorists want to do. They want to kill as many Americans as possible. That means you go after New York City, not rural southern Indiana. It means they want to strike the symbolic targets of America. They have said this. That means you protect the Washington Monument and the United States Capitol and not other places.
MR. RUSSERT: Establish a unified incident command system.
MR. KEAN: That is so important and we saw it. Katrina. I mean, there was such confusion at that point. It's at state, local, everybody else. Nobody knew who was in charge. Nobody knew by the way who was in charge on 9/11 when people responded to the World Trade Center. Police, fire, Port Authority--nobody knew who was in charge. The same thing happened in Katrina. We suggested every single state, every single locality, you've got to know who's in charge. We have Bloomberg doing that now in New York. Other leaders have got to do it. One person's got to be in charge.
MR. RUSSERT: It sounds like on these four areas, it's an F. Is that fair?
MR. KEAN: Well, we may be giving grades tomorrow and I'll tell you there are more F's, unfortunately than there are A's. MR. HAMILTON: But if these two bills are passed... MR. KEAN: Yeah. Yeah. MR. HAMILTON: ...on radio spectrum and allocation of funds, the grades will quickly switch... MR. KEAN: Yeah. MR. HAMILTON: ...to a B or an A. So some of these things can be corrected quickly. Others cannot.
MR. RUSSERT: The Transportation Security Administration has made a decision that they're going to allow scissors with a blade of four inches and tools of seven inches or more be allowed to take them on airplanes. Is that a good idea?
MR. KEAN: Personally, I don't think so. I don't think we have to go backward on here. They're talking about using more money for random checks. I don't think random checks are very good anyway. That's pulling out your grandmother because she came up on a computer. That's not what we should be doing. And to switch--and by the way, talking about TSA, four years after 9/11, there still isn't a unified watch list, in other words, of terrorists. Terrorists coming through the airport may still not be spotted 'cause the agencies still haven't gotten together. There's still not a unified watch list.
MR. HAMILTON: On the question of the scissors, I think that's a tough one. One of the things we said in the report is that you should make a judgment as to what the high risks are. I worry more about what's in the cargo container than the people on the airplane today. So we said that one of the really great risks are explosions taking place in the cargo hold. We have to get much, much better than we are today at being able to detect those explosions. Now, the TSA, the Transportation Security Agencies, they can't do it all. You have to allocate resources, so judgments have to be made. I'm a little skittish as I guess Tom is about a four-inch or three-inch scissors. Remember the hijackers were very sophisticated people.
MR. RUSSERT: Box cutters.
MR. HAMILTON: Well, they knew you could get on an airplane with a four-inch blade but not a six- inch blade. They knew that.
MR. KEAN: And they used them.
MR. HAMILTON: And they used that information. So you have to anticipate a very sophisticated enemy here as they were prior to 9/11.
MR. RUSSERT: The sky marshals and the flight attendants are opposed to this change. MR. KEAN: Yeah. MR. HAMILTON: Yeah. MR. RUSSERT: Why don't we listen to them?
MR. KEAN: I think we should. They're the people who deal with this every day, but you mentioned the cargo hold. You know, we've got--we've now developed machinery that can detect some of these explosives going into the cargo hold but we haven't installed it yet. And it doesn't do any good being invented and not installed.
MR. RUSSERT: I can just see my dad and millions of other Americans sitting here watching this program this morning saying, "What is going on?" It's been four years since September 11. You had your commission. You met, had a bipartisan unanimous vote, had these recommendations to allow emergency responders to talk with one another... MR. KEAN: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: ...to give more money to areas of high risk, to have a unified command center and nothing's been done. What is the problem? Seriously, who's accountable?
MR. HAMILTON: Well, we've asked ourselves that question a good many times. I think in general what we will say tomorrow is that there is a lack of a sense of urgency. And that's what impresses us overall. I think what happens is sustainability is a very tough thing in our government just because there are so many competing priorities. We've got a war going on. We've got three wars going on, one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq and the war against terror, and it's awfully hard to keep people focused on something like this. What Tom and I and the other commissioners are saying is we have to get back to a real sense of urgency about protecting the safety and the security of the American people.
MR. RUSSERT: Two other big issues you raise: the "Nonproliferation: the maximum effort by the U.S. government to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction; public diplomacy, defining the U.S. message."
How is the government doing on those?
MR. KEAN: Well, there's some progress on trying to secure nuclear sites, but not enough. We're talking about doing it in 14 years. Nobody thinks we have 14 years. Bin Laden has said he wants to use nuclear weapons to attack the United States. So that's got to be a much higher priority. We should be able to do that in two or three years, if it's on top of the priority list. I think we can. And the second one you mentioned, we've got to look at our image in the world and we've got to do things differently. We've got to talk about public education for people in some of these countries. We've got to talk about the kind of image we have and the things we do to create that image. If we don't, there are going to be more terrorists created than the ones we're now killing. MR. RUSSERT: Does the debate over torture help that?
MR. KEAN: Debate over torture doesn't help that at all. I mean, for us to be talking in the United States about whether or not we should torture people--we recommended very strongly in the report international standards that every country would go along with on how you treat. MR. RUSSERT: International standards. MR. KEAN: International standards... MR. HAMILTON: Yeah. MR. RUSSERT: International standards. MR. KEAN: ...on how you treat prisoners. We've got to do that. This is doing us no good.
MR. RUSSERT: A few weeks ago I had the former director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, on this program, and he was very pointed on some comments about your commission. And he wrote this piece for The Wall Street Journal. Let me walk you through it: "Why Did the 9-11 Commission Ignore `Able Danger'? Recent revelations from the military intelligence operation code-named `Able Danger' have cast light on a missed opportunity that could have potentially prevented 9/11. Specifically, Able Danger concluded in February 2000 that military experts had identified Mohamed Atta by name (and maybe by photograph) as an al-Qaeda agent operating in the U.S. Subsequently, military officers assigned to Able Danger were prevented from sharing this critical information with FBI agents, even though appointments had been made to do so. Why?...
"Was Able Danger intelligence provided to the 9-11 Commission prior to the finalization of its report, and, if so, why was it not explored? In sum, what did the 9/11 commissioners and their staff know about Able Danger and when did they know it? ...the 9-11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it `was not historically significant.' This astounding conclusion--in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings--raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself."
MR. HAMILTON: Well, that's a big "if" on the end there. Look, we looked at Able Danger very, very carefully. We do not think there was anything there of great significance. Now, something could come out in the future. I don't know. But in Mr. Freeh's article he did not present any new evidence at all. Our investigators were informed about Able Danger. We requested all of the documents relating to Able Danger. We reviewed these documents. We had investigators meet with some of these people in Afghanistan and other places. The bottom line is that they can furnish no documentary evidence to support their charges that they had a chart, for example, with Mohamed Atta's name on it. It is...
MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Weldon of Pennsylvania says he gave that chart to the national security advisor.
MR. HAMILTON: And the national security advisor denied that he ever got it. That was the assistant, Stephen Hadley, not Condi Rice, at the time. We have not seen that chart. We have not seen Mohamed Atta's name in any documentation prior to 9/11. Believe me, we know the name of Atta and we would have been alert to it. We just need evidence to support these charges. We don't accuse anyone here of bad intentions. But the people that have brought forward this information have not given us any documentation. They were not involved in the analysis of it themselves. Their recollections in some respects--for example, the whereabouts of Mohamed Atta--simply are not accurate. We have documentation to show that. So we need to have more evidence, and Mr. Freeh's article simply did not bring forward any new evidence. We concluded--the staff concluded, not the commission--that this information was not valid, that there was too much doubt about it.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you agree with that?
MR. KEAN: Yeah. We had an awful lot of people coming forward, 50 or 60, saying they saw Mohamed Atta here, they saw Mohamed Atta there; they had this and that. There was absolutely no evidence to back this up. There still isn't any evidence to back it up. If people want to look into it, they're welcome to. We still haven't seen the evidence to indicate it. We saw every file. The Pentagon denies it. They say they haven't gotten any information. The White House...
MR. HAMILTON: White House denies it.
MR. KEAN: White House denies it. Nobody brought the congressional investigation any information. Nobody gave any information to the 9/11 Commission to back this up. If this is true in any way, it's a monstrous conspiracy. I haven't seen any evidence to back it up.
MR. RUSSERT: I want to go back to your original report. You found that there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that was "operational." And you found that there was no evidence that the--Iraq cooperated with al-Qaeda in developing or carrying out attacks against the U.S. Is that accurate? MR. KEAN: That's correct. MR. RUSSERT: So there's no suggestion that Iraq was, in any way, shape or form, involved with September 11?
MR. KEAN: No, and we can find no evidence whatsoever, and we came out with that statement clearly. MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, if one year from now we have exactly the same report in terms of all the factors I raised with you this morning, what would you say? MR. HAMILTON: I'd be extremely disappointed. MR. KEAN: And extremely worried that we may have had another attack at that point because some of these things weren't done. MR. HAMILTON: We believe another attack will occur, and we had better get to it and protect the American people. MR. RUSSERT: Not if but when. MR. HAMILTON: It's not a question of if. We know what their intent is. They've expressed it over and over again. MR. RUSSERT: And are we prepared? MR. HAMILTON: We've... MR. RUSSERT: Are we prepared? MR. HAMILTON: No, we are not as well prepared, as Tom put it early on, as well prepared as we should be. There is plenty of room for improvement, and we've got to get with the task. MR. KEAN: And God help us if we have another attack and we haven't done some of these things. MR. RUSSERT: Who has to grab hold of this? Is it the president? MR. KEAN: It's the president and the Congress. It's our government. And there are things we talked about today that Congress has to do; there are things we talked about that the administration has to do. First of all, the safety of the American people has got to be their number one priority. There is nothing more important. MR. RUSSERT: Are you now out of business? MR. KEAN: We're going out of business as of December 31. MR. RUSSERT: That's it. MR. KEAN: That's it. MR. RUSSERT: Never to be heard from again. MR. KEAN: As individuals, we're going to be around, but... MR. RUSSERT: And your son is running for the United States Senate of New Jersey. MR. KEAN: Our son is--my son is running for the United States Senate. Good candidate, by the way. MR. RUSSERT: OK. We need equal time for the Democrats, but that's--Governor Tom Kean, Congressman Lee Hamilton, thanks very much.
As head of operations, Rabia would have been responsible for training, recruiting, networking and, most importantly, planning international terrorist activities outside the Afghan-Pakistan region.One of al Qaeda's top five leaders, said to be responsible for planning overseas strikes, was killed by Pakistani security forces in a rocket attack near the Afghan border with U.S. help, American and Pakistani officials said Saturday.
Hamza Rabia, a key associate of al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri, died Thursday in an explosion in the North Waziristan tribal area, and his remains were identified in DNA tests, Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said.
Two U.S. counterterrorism officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the information's sensitivity, confirmed Rabia's death but would not elaborate on the circumstances.
The officials said Rabia was believed to be an Egyptian and head of al Qaeda's foreign operations, possibly as senior as the No. 3 official in the terrorist group. That would put him in a tier just below Osama bin Laden and al-Zawahri.
"He was al Qaeda's No. 5 and this is what we know," Ahmed told The Associated Press.
Rabia filled the vacuum created this year by the capture of the previous operations chief, Abu Faraj al-Libbi, the two U.S. officials said.
As head of operations, Rabia would have been responsible for training, recruiting, networking and, most importantly, planning international terrorist activities outside the Afghan-Pakistan region.
One of the officials said Rabia also may have been involved in operations inside the region.
He had a wide array of jihadist contacts, the other official said, and was believed to be trying to reinvigorate al Qaeda's terrorist operations.
The circumstances of Rabia's death were still not clear.
A senior Pakistani intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media, said a missile attack triggered a huge explosion in a stockpile of bomb-making materials, grenades and other munitions.
Other Pakistani intelligence officials, also not identifying themselves for the same reason, said U.S. assistance played a critical role in tracking down Rabia and "eliminating the threat" that he posed.
Earlier, a top government administrator, Syed Zaheerul Islam, said Rabia died in an explosion while making bombs at a home near Miran Shah. Islam said the blast also killed four other people, including two local residents, and left two others injured, who have not been identified.
Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf confirmed Rabia had been killed.
"Yes, indeed, 200 percent confirmed," Musharraf said in Kuwait at the start of a three-nation visit in the Middle East.
Al-Libbi twice tried to assassinate Musharraf for making the Islamic nation a key ally of the United States in its war on terrorism. Al-Libbi was captured in northwestern Pakistan on May 2 and later turned over to Washington for further investigation.
The Dawn newspaper, citing sources it did not identify, reported that the attack on a mud-walled home near Miran Shah may have been launched from two pilotless planes. Miran Shah is a strategic tribal region where remnants of al Qaeda are believed to have been hiding and where Pakistani forces have launched several operations against them.
The newspaper reported that associates from outside Pakistan retrieved the bodies of Rabia and two other foreigners and buried them in an unknown location.
Military officials have said hundreds of Arab, Afghan and Central Asian militants are in North and South Waziristan.
Pakistan has deployed thousands of troops in the area, fighting intense battles with militants and killing and capturing several of them.
Officials have said they do not know the whereabouts of al-Zawahri or bin Laden.
An author and Middle East correspondent for the UK's Independent newspaper, Fisk's impassioned, some would say polemical, reporting of conflicts in the region has drawn both praise and criticism.
He has won the British International Journalist of the year award seven times and reported from the region for nearly 30 years.
You've said that your next visit to Iraq may be your last - why?
Robert Fisk: Iraq is becoming so dangerous for journalists now that I and my colleagues ask ourselves if the risk is worth the story.
Having said that, I probably will keep going back.
I've never been on an assignment that is as dangerous as Iraq on a personal basis and we've reached a point in the Iraq story that our access to real sources - not the Americans and the British and the Iraqi government but real people - is so restricted that we can only just about do our jobs.
You've been critical of what you describe as "hotel reporting" from Iraq. What should news organisations be doing that they are not?
The first thing they should do is say to their readers or viewers that they are confined to their hotels and don't leave and don't do any street reporting.
By using a Baghdad dateline they give the impression they can check stories that they can't.
So for example, when the Americans claim they killed 142 "terrorists" in Tal Afar, the impression is given they can check the story out, but they can't because they can't go there.
The reality is they are merely being an echo chamber for various spokesmen, officials and generals - there is nothing wrong with that, but just tell the people at the other end of the story the circumstances of your own reporting.
Do you think that the passing of the constitution in Iraq in a referendum will have an impact on the level of violence there?
Not really. Most Iraqis are just trying to survive. They have no electricity and very little money to pay for fuel. They are desperate to protect their families, womenfolk and children from being kidnapped for money.
They are frightened of the suicide bombers that sometimes seem to attack at the rate of five or six times a day.
Iraq is in a state of total anarchy from Mosul all the way down to Basra.
There are armed insurgents on the streets within half a mile of the Green Zone in Baghdad, where the US and UK embassies are. The whole American project in Iraq is effectively dead.
When you are there you realise it but when you emerge from this bubble of anarchy and watch television in Britain or America you can be persuaded it's going fine.
It's not going fine - it's a disaster.
Can you tell us about your impressions of Osama Bin Laden from your meetings with him?
He's a man of ferocious self-conviction who became more and more vain as the years went by - but also a person who thinks before he speaks.
Bin Laden will sit back and clean his teeth with a piece of miswack wood while he thinks for up to a minute about what his answer to your question should be.
His interests have changed as the years have gone by.
When I first met him in 1993 he was obsessed with the victory he and his mujahideen had gained over the Soviet army.
In 1996 he was obsessed by what he called the corruption of the Saudi royal family.
In 1997 he was obsessed by the American presence throughout the Arab world. That was probably still obsessing him on 11 September 2001 but I haven't seen him since then.
He was a very self-conscious and self-confident man but with a ferocious desire to rule or participate in an Islamic caliphate in which the laws would truly be Koranic where I don't think there would be a lot of women's rights.
Did you get any sense at your last meeting that his organisation was capable of carrying out the 9-11 attacks?
No. But he did say to me that he prayed that God would allow al-Qaeda to turn America into a shadow of its former self.
At the time I thought it was just rhetoric but when I saw the almost biblical pictures on the evening of 11 September I did think that New York was a shadow of its former self.
In your latest book, you say that Bin Laden hinted that he wanted you to work for al-Qaeda - and you turned him down. What do you think he wanted?
I've no idea. It was at the third meeting and when I arrived in his tent and he came over to me with a big smile which I didn't like and said: "One of our brothers had a dream that you arrived on a horse dressed as a Muslim Imam and wearing a turban - this means you are a true Muslim."
I felt at once that he was trying to make a recruit of me and that he thought that because I was a fair reporter that he would be able to bring me across to his side.
I was quite horrified by this and tried to think how best to reply, because after all I was surrounded by al-Qaeda people.
What I said was: "I am not a Muslim. I am a journalist and my job is to tell the truth."
He realised I was rejecting him and said: "But that is the same as being a good Muslim."
I breathed a big sigh of relief.
What is the nature of the conflict between the West and the Muslim world? Is it a clash of civilisations or are we exaggerating the real appeal of a small number of extremists?
I've never come across this famous "clash of civilisations" and I think it's a myth.
I live in the Muslim world and among Muslims. My landlord is a Muslim, my grocer is a Muslim and I think the idea is nonsense.
One of the themes of your reflections on the Middle East seems to be the cyclical nature of history and political leaders repeating the mistakes of their predecessors. Could you expand on this?
Yes, my latest book is called The Great War for Civilisation after the inscription on the back of my father's World War I medal.
After WWI the British and French created the borders of Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia and the Middle East.
I've spent my entire professional career watching the people within those borders burn.
For me it's all about linking history with the present.
Oddly enough, that's true of Bin Laden as well, he talks about the Balfour declaration, the Sykes-Picot agreement and the loss of Andalusia to the Christians in the 15th Century.
It seems that in many ways, history haunts us and maybe we should all carry a history book in our back pockets.
Do you think the internet and blogging will change the way conflicts are reported?
I've no idea - I don't use the internet and don't use emails so I've no idea.
Why did you choose to become a foreign correspondent?
At age of 12 after seeing the Alfred Hitchcock film Foreign Correspondent in which a reporter called Humphrey Haverstock goes to Europe to cover the outbreak of the WWII.
He witnesses an assassination, chases spies, gets shot down by a German battleship, files a scoop and wins the most gorgeous woman in the movie - I thought that sounded pretty good.
It didn't turn out to be that adventurous, exciting or romantic for me in the Middle East.
It turned out in my case in the Middle East to be a job of recording the injustices, torture, dictators and wars that have plagued the region.
You take a definite position in your reporting - something many correspondents say they don't do.
If you believe that victims should have more of a say than people who commit atrocities then yes I take a definite position. If reporters don't do that then they are out of their minds.
If you are covering the liberation of extermination camps at the end of WWII do you give equal time to the SS? No - you speak to the victims.
Equally, when I was reporting the Palestinian suicide bombing of a Jerusalem pizzeria in 2001 in which 22 Israelis were killed - over half of them children - I reported the atrocity that had taken place. I didn't give equal time to the Hamas spokesman.
This idea that you must balance out a story by talking to the oppressors on an equal basis with the victims is ridiculous.
If you are a baker or a bus driver and you see something terrible then you feel angry about it.
I, as a journalist, also have the right to feel angry and talk about it with anger - and that's what I do.
Arab satellite TV al-Jazeera has aired a video made by a previously unknown militant group, showing four Western nationals taken hostage in Iraq.
A Briton, two Canadians and a US citizen were kidnapped in western Baghdad on Saturday.
The video claimed they were undercover spies working as Christian peace activists, and showed the passport of the UK man, 74-year-old Norman Kember.
No demands or specific threats against their lives were made in the tape.
Mr Kember was shown sitting on the floor with three other men.
BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera says the hostages did not appear in distress and it seemed a positive sign that no gunmen were threatening them in the video, from the Swords of Truth Brigade.
It bears all the hallmarks of a political kidnapping, not one for money, our correspondent says.
The footage had a date stamp indicating it was recorded on 27 November.
A US-based group which says it is involved in violence-reduction programmes confirmed on Tuesday that four of its members had been seized in Baghdad.
Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) said its teams of trained peacemakers "work in areas of lethal conflict around the world."
The organisation said it had been present in Iraq since April 2003, "providing first-hand, independent reports from the region, working with detainees of both US and Iraqi forces, training others in non-violent intervention, and human rights documentation".
'Distress'
Canada says it is doing all it can to ensure the safe return of its nationals.
"I can assure Canadians that there is no more urgent priority than the safe return of our citizens," Prime Minister Paul Martin said.
The UK Foreign Office issued a statement "utterly condemning" the kidnapping and the video.
"The release of this video can only cause further distress to their families at this difficult time," a statement said.
A friend of Mr Kember, Pat Gaffney, told the BBC she was glad he has been shown to be still alive, but expressing anxiety about the future.
A German woman and her driver are also believed to have been kidnapped in Iraq in the last few days.
German TV station ARD says it has a video showing the woman and her driver, with kidnappers demanding Germany cut ties with the Iraqi government.
A group of Iranian pilgrims were also kidnapped in the town of Balad north of the Iraqi capital Baghdad.
Four men and two women were seized on a pilgrimage to a Shia Muslim shrine in Samarra. The women were released several hours later, police said.
The head of al-Jazeera is delivering a letter to Tony Blair demanding the facts on reports that President Bush suggested bombing the Arab TV station.
He wants a memo published which is alleged to show Tony Blair dissuaded President Bush from bombing its HQ.
Last week the Daily Mirror reported what it said was the contents of a memo showing Mr Blair had talked the US President out of the attack last year.
Wadah Khanfar is calling for the facts to be made public and urgent talks.
We demand a proper explanation and we would like to know the facts about this letter
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has warned newspaper editors against publication, citing the Official Secrets Act.
According to press reports, the memo includes a transcript record of Mr Blair attempting in April 2004 to persuade Mr Bush not to bomb al-Jazeera's HQ in Qatar.
Qatar is an ally of the US and was the location of US military headquarters during the Iraq war.
The White House dismissed reports of the conversation as "outlandish", but US officials have openly accused al-Jazeera of being a mouthpiece for al-Qaeda.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, Mr Khanfar said: "Al- Jazeera is in the foremost of free form and democracy in the Arab world and therefore this news that we have heard is very concerning.
"So we demand a proper explanation and we would like to know the facts about this letter."
Political embarrassment
He said the matter was very important and that it concerned not only al-Jazeera but journalists across the world.
"We need to know if this discussion has taken place or not...if this document exists or not.
"By banning this document from being published it does cast a lot of concerns about this issue.
"When we are talking about bombing a TV station like that I think it is of historical value to know what's happened."
He said al-Jazeera had also asked the White House for an explanation.
Downing Street said on Friday that it was quite happy to talk to al-Jazeera as it was to other broadcasters.
Clarifying his position, Lord Goldsmith said he had not been seeking to gag newspapers and had instead been urging them to take legal advice.
"I am acting in my independent role, this is not the Government acting ... it is me acting in my independent role to protect the administration of justice, because there is a live case going on at the moment which mustn't be prejudiced, and secondly to protect the law."
'Deliberately targeted'
Cabinet Office civil servant David Keogh has been charged under the Official Secrets Act of passing the memo to former Labour MP Tony Clarke's researcher Leo O'Connor.
Both men are due to appear at Bow Street Magistrates Court next week.
Last week Labour MP and former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle tabled a Commons motion calling for the memo to be made public.
He accused ministers of using the Official Secrets Act to save political embarrassment rather than protect national security as it is intended.
Mutual suspicion
Lord Goldsmith also denied the Act was being used to prevent political embarrassment.
"It is not being used to save the embarrassment of a politician. That is completely not the case at all."
He also refused to confirm the contents of the memo.
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says this latest row follows a history of tension and mutual suspicion between al-Jazeera and the US administration.
Many of al-Jazeera's employees have long been privately convinced that their offices in Kabul and Baghdad were deliberately targeted by the Pentagon in 2001 and 2003 respectively.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - An American Muslim student was convicted Tuesday of joining al-Qaida and plotting to assassinate President Bush. The federal jury rejected Ahmed Omar Abu Ali's claim that Saudi authorities whipped and tortured him to extract a false confession. Abu Ali, a 24-year-old U.S. citizen born to a Jordanian father and raised in Falls Church, Va., could get life in prison on charges that included conspiracy to assassinate the president, conspiracy to hijack aircraft and providing support to al-Qaida. The jury deliberated for 2 1/2 days. Abu Ali swallowed hard before the verdict was read but otherwise showed little emotion. He did not testify at his trial. "Obviously the jury has spoken, but the fight is not over," defense attorney Khurrum Wahid said. "We intend to use the justice system to prove our client's innocence." Abu Ali told authoritiees shortly after his arrest at a Medina, Saudi Arabia, university in June 2003 that he joined al-Qaida and discussed various terrorist plots, including a plan to personally assassinate Bush and to establish himself as a leader of an al-Qaida cell in the United States. But the defense countered that he was tortured by the Saudi security force known as the Mubahith. Wahid suggested that an al-Qaida member arrested by the Saudis falsely fingered Abu Ali to protect other cell members still at large. "You think the al-Qaida guys are going to give up a fellow al-Qaida, or did they pick some patsy from the University of Medina?" Wahid said in closing arguments. Prosecutors said he was never mistreated and confessed voluntarily. Prosecutors said Abu Ali went to Saudi Arabia in 2002 with the notion of becoming a terrorist and later met al-Qaida's No. 2 man in Medina. "The true focus of his education quickly became apparent," prosecutor Stephen Campbell said. "Instead of studying Islamic law, he began attending secret terrorist training sessions."
At least 2,093 the number of U.S. service members who have died since the war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
U.S. forces sealed off a house in the northern city of Mosul where eight suspected al Qaeda members died in a gunfight Esome by their own hand to avoid capture. A U.S. official said Sunday that efforts were under way to determine if terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was among the dead.
Insurgents, meanwhile, killed an American soldier and a Marine in separate attacks over the weekend, while a British soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in the south.
In Washington, a U.S. official said the identities of the terror suspects killed in the Saturday raid was unknown. Asked if they could include al-Zarqawi, the official replied: "There are efforts under way to determine if he was killed."
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.
Tthere is no hard forensic evidence to confirm al-Zaraqwi's death. The claim has been made on Web sites out of the Middle East, but those sites have been wrong before, he says.
Once the Mosul house was surrounded, insurgents blew themselves up, filling the house with body parts and charred flesh. U.S. troops have taken the flesh and blood samples to complete DNA tests to identify who was killed in the building.
On Saturday, police Brig. Gen. Said Ahmed al-Jubouri said the raid was launched after a tip that top al Qaeda operatives, possibly including al-Zarqawi, were in the house in the northeastern part of the city.
During the intense gunbattle that followed, three insurgents detonated explosives and killed themselves to avoid capture, Iraqi officials said. Eleven Americans were wounded, the U.S. military said. Such intense resistance often suggests an attempt to defend a high-value target.
American soldiers controlled the site Sunday, and residents said helicopters flew over the area throughout the day. Some residents said the tight security was reminiscent of the July 2003 operation in which Saddam Hussein's sons, Odai and Qusai, were killed in Mosul.
But Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said reports of al-Zarqawi's death were "highly unlikely and not credible."
American soldiers controlled the site Sunday, and residents said helicopters flew over the area throughout the day. Some residents said the tight security was reminiscent of the July 2003 operation in which Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay, were killed in Mosul.
The elusive al-Zarqawi has narrowly escaped capture in the past. U.S. forces said they nearly caught him in a February 2005 raid that recovered his computer.
In May, the group said he was wounded in fighting and was taken out of the country for treatment. Within days, it reported he had returned — though there was never any independent confirmation that he was wounded.
The U.S. soldier killed Sunday near the capital was assigned to the Army's Task Force Baghdad and was hit by small arms fire, the military said. The Marine, assigned to Regimental Combat Team 8, 2nd Marine Division, died of wounds suffered the day before in Karmah, a village outside Fallujah to the west of the capital.
In the southern city of Basra, a roadside bomb killed a British soldier and wounded four others, the British Ministry of Defense said. The ministry said 98 British soldiers have died in Iraq.
The U.S. military also said Sunday that 24 people — including another Marine and 15 civilians — were killed the day before in an ambush on a joint U.S. Iraqi patrol in Haditha, 140 miles northwest of Baghdad in the volatile Euphrates River valley.
The three American deaths brought to at least 2,093 the number of U.S. service members who have died since the war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
Meanwhile, four women were killed Sunday night when gunmen stormed their home in a Christian district of eastern Baghdad, police said, adding that valuables were stolen and the motive for the attack appeared to have been robbery.
The latest deaths occurred at the end of a violent three-day period in which at least 140 Iraqi civilians died in a series of bombings and suicide attacks — most targeting Shiite Muslims.
The victims included 76 people who died Friday in near-simultaneous suicide bombings at two Shiite mosques in Khanaqin and 36 more killed the next day by a suicide car bomber who detonated his vehicle amid mourners at a Shiite funeral north of the capital.
In Washington, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday on ABC's This Week that commanders' assessments will determine the pace of any military drawdown. About 160,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq as the country approaches parliamentary elections Dec. 15.
The Pentagon has said it plans to scale back troop strength to its pre-election baseline of 138,000, depending on conditions. Rumsfeld said the U.S.-led coalition continues to make progress in training Iraqi security forces, which he placed at 212,000.
Rumsfeld also said talk in the United States of a quick withdrawal from Iraq plays into the hands of the insurgents.
"The enemy hears a big debate in the United States, and they have to wonder maybe all we have to do is wait and we'll win. We can't win militarily. They know that. The battle is here in the United States," he told Fox News Sunday.
In Cairo, Iraq's president said Sunday he was ready for talks with anti-government opposition figures and members of Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath Party, and he called on the Sunni-led insurgency to lay down its arms and join the political process.
But President Jalal Talabani, attending an Arab League-sponsored reconciliation conference, insisted that the Iraqi government would not meet with Baath Party members who are participating in the Sunni-led insurgency.
"I am the president of Iraq and I am responsible for all Iraqis. If those who describe themselves as Iraqi resistance want to contact me, they are welcome," Talabani told reporters. "I want to listen to all Iraqis. I am committed to listen to them, even those who are criminals and are on trial."
Talabani made clear in his remarks, however, that he would talk with insurgents and "criminals" only if they put down their weapons.
In Baghdad, hundreds of Sunnis demanded an end to the torture of detainees and called for the international community to pressure Iraqi and U.S. authorities to ensure that such abuse does not occur.
Anger over detainee abuse has increased sharply since U.S. troops found 173 detainees at an Interior Ministry prison in Baghdad's Jadriyah neighborhood. The detainees, mainly Sunnis, were found malnourished and some had torture marks on their bodies. Sunni Arabs dominate the insurgent ranks.
Iraq's Shiite-led government has promised an investigation and punishment for anyone guilty of torture.
In other developments:
As for the British, I tell them that [UK Prime Minister Tony] Blair has brought you destruction in central London, and God willing, will bring more destruction. The nations of the crusade alliance, we proposed that you at least stop your aggression against the Muslims. The lion of Islam, mujaheed sheikh Osama Bin Laden, may God preserve him, offered you a truce to leave the house of Islam. Has sheikh Osama Bin Laden not informed you that you will not dream of security until we live it in reality in Palestine and before all infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad, may peace be upon him? Your salvation will only come in your withdrawal from our land
You, however, shed rivers of blood in our land so we exploded volcanoes of anger
in your land. Our message to you is crystal clear: Your salvation will only come in your withdrawal from our
land, in stopping the robbing of our oil and resources, and in stopping your support for the corrupt and corrupting leaders.
What you have you seen, O Americans, in New York and Washington and the losses you are having
in Afghanistan and Iraq, in spite of all the media blackout, are only the losses of the initial clashes. If you continue the same policy of aggression against Muslims, God willing, you will see horror
that will make you forget what you saw in Vietnam. The truth which [US President George W] Bush, [US Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice and [US
Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld hide from you is that the only way out from Iraq is immediate withdrawal, and any delay
in this decision will only mean more deaths and more losses. If you don't leave today, then you shall inevitably leave tomorrow but after scores of thousands
of fatalities and double that number of disabled and wounded people. They are repeating with regard to Iraq the same claims and lies they uttered about Vietnam. Did they not tell you that they would train the Vietnamese people so that they would run their
own affairs themselves, and that they were defending freedom in Vietnam?