This transcript is produced from the teletext subtitles that are generated live for Newsnight. It has been checked against the programme as broadcast, however Newsnight can accept no responsibility for any factual inaccuracies. We will be happy to correct serious errors.
We are joined now from Yale by the
former Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe
Talbot. We're joined on the phone from
the States by Senator Wayne Allard, who
sits on the armed forces committee and
here in the studio is Dr Muhammad
Al-Massari, who is a Saudi dissident.
Strobe Talbot, billions of dollars
spent on defence intelligence and
this attack was apparently unpredicted.
How could that happen?
It is very difficult to predict
something like this, obviously and
by definition. I think, though, it is
a rush to perhaps unfair judgement
to call it an intelligence failure. It
is certainly not premature, though,
to say we are going to have spend a
lot more of our intelligence assets,
and when I say "we" I mean not just
the United States, directed at this kind
of target. Up until now, this kind of
threat┐we have been aware of it, we've
experienced it, no where this kind
magnitude but it's been on the margins
of what were seen as the principle
threats of security of this country and
the civilised world. Now we see it as a
central threat and have to treat it as much.
Senator Allard, you sat on the
intelligence committee and we have
heard there that precisely this threat
was warned of in earlier assessments.
Did you ever come across any such
SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD:
I was part of some
hearings where the suggestion was
made and obviously it is hard to
evaluate just the likelihood of
something like that happening. I
think it is a shock to all of us,
even though at one time we talked
about various scenarios that
terrorists may use to try and
cripple the United States in some
way. One way or another, we always
seemed rather removed. Then there is
always the issue of how far to do
you go to limit the freedom that
everybody enjoys. We tried to make
a decision of what seemed practical,
What seemed practical two days
ago, or maybe seemed not practical two
days ago, seems very practical today
and I think America in many ways has
lost its innocence due to the tragedy
yesterday and the sorrow that we're
How clear were the warnings you got
on the intelligence committee?
They weren't clear, they were just
speculations, suggestions at what
could happen. Then you are faced
with, what is the likelihood, what's a
reasonable approach to try and defend
Were they at all close to what actually
happened, these warnings?
They were similar in scenario. They
weren't exactly, but similar.
Like I say, this is a changed world
after yesterday. A lot of our
friends and a lot of Americans
realise how dangerous the world can
be, particularly when you have a
terrorist group out there that may
target one community or building or
even the country.
This is based on my experience when
I was in Government and devoid of any
inside knowledge of what has happened
in recent days, but warnings are more or
less constant fact of life. People like
the Senator and people in the executive
branch and in the intelligence community
are getting them all the time. You are
constantly in the position of having to figure
out how much importance to attach to
today's warning as opposed to the one
you got a week ago - a lot of cries of wolf,
wolf. Then of course the real wolf comes
along and everybody wishes they'd paid
attention to that one. You have to keep
that in mind as a point of context.
The scale of this attack was so gargantuan,
so grotesque that you can hardly imagine
anyone taking it seriously before it happened,
In addition to the obvious inadequacy
of the intelligence gathering, processing
and the policy response to the intelligence,
there was also a breakdown in the
security procedures for air travel.
Maybe I am the only person who
feels this way, but an awful lot of
folks looking back over the last
several decades think of aircraft
hijacking as a problem that was
not solved, was greatly diminished
quite a number of years ago. I think an
additional shock here is that these
characters were able to synchronise
their hijackings of multiple aircraft.
Many of us just didn't think that was
possible in this day and age with all
of the precautions.
Who do you think the initial finger of
suspicion points towards?
If you are asking me, I would say there
is no question who is at the top of the list
and you have mentioned it already in
this broadcast and that is Osama Bin
Laden. I also think it is extremely
important to have conclusive proof,
for all kinds of reasons. I suspect when
we get conclusive proof it will be a lot
more than one mastermind, given the
magnitude of what was pulled off here.
Dr Muhammad Al-Massari, Osama Bin
Laden is a Saudi dissident, as indeed you
are - I'm not suggesting that you have an
identity of views. Do you think he was
DR MUHAMMED AL-MASSARI:
As the gentleman said, it is not clear
yet. The level of sophistication is a
bit out of the reach of Osama Bin
Laden but it is not completely
impossible. Let me maybe correct a
couple of points you mentioned. The
first point you mentioned is undeclared
and unethical. I would say it is declared.
He declared war and the US is engaged
in war against Iraq. When Mr Bush
yesterday said it is war, I said "hello,
good morning, wake up, it is war long
ago." Number two, ethical. We should
not go in this ocean of ethical problems
because there are many unethical things
in the Middle East.
Are you trying to justify this?
No, no. It will be unjust towards the
listener to think that was going in Iraq,
and what Mrs Albright said a couple of
years ago, that it is justified to have half
a million Iraqi children killed to content
Saddam Hussein. So there are plenty
of unethical problems. It is better we
don't go into ethical problems today
Would you like to explain to us what you
imagine these, we assume young, men
thought they were achieving?
They feel they are engaged in war
against the United States, which is
involved in war activities in Iraq,
and supporting Israel in past and
future and now, in future hopefully
not but now, specifically under Mr
Sharon. So they are full of rage and
anger and full of feeling they are justified
to counteract the act of war by the United
States by their own. But I said this
will lead us into dark areas of ethics
which I am not┐think it's the right
time at the moment. It needs more
relaxed attitude later down the road.
Senator Allard, when you hear that point
of view expressed, it may baffle us in the
West, but when you hear it expressed like
that, how do you think a country goes about
dealing that sort of threat?
We will deal with the threat and we
will put a face to whoever the
perpetrators were of this tragedy.
I am confident of that.
America never viewed it was a war
with anybody. We do realise that
there is some people that hate
America, they hate freedom and hate
our prosperity but we never, again,
consider ourselves at war. After
yesterday many Americans now
consider what happened yesterday an
act of war and there is some
discussion in the American
community as well as among
politicians as to how far do we go
in engaging in an act of war.
How far do you think you should go?
Are you talking to me? I think we need
to identify the perpetrators, make
sure we know who they are and then
I think we need to respond in a
direct and appropriate way and I
think it may very well necessitate
military action and I think we take it if
Strobe Talbot, when you look at this attack,
the most remarkable, horrifying characteristic
the is resolution of the assassins and their
total ruthlessness. This is a new enemy for
the United States isn't it?
It is new at this level. We have
experienced terrorism in the past.
Would you mind if we went back to
to the earlier exchange. I found
what was said by your guest in
London to be nothing short of
grotesque and perhaps at another time
we can delve into those areas he
calls 'dark areas of ethics'. I think he's
not shed much light there. But I do
think that precisely because the
United States has been on the
frontline of the search for peace
in the Middle East, and has overall
been a indisputable force for
peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict,
it will be important for the Bush
administration, as it calibrates its
response to this outrage, to take account
of the implications of its response for
the Middle East peace process. What
I attach more importance to than
what was just said in the show is
the fact there were a lot of
Palestinians, including a lot of Palestinian
young people, out cheering and
celebrating when this horror
happened. That is just a fact of
life and part of the mix in the
Middle East that the United States,
through its diplomacy and political
influence, is trying to change.