It was reported this week that President Obama plans to name a new FBI director, former Bush administration official James Comey, who will take over at a busy time for the agency, in the midst of counterterrorism investigations including that of the Boston bombings. In 1989, another new FBI director appeared on Meet the Press to face tough questions about a terror attack. William S Sessions was only about a year into his term as Director of the FBI at the time of the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988. American and British officials would later conclude that the explosion was caused by a bomb, the deadliest terrorist attack on American civilians until September 11, 2001. But when Sessions appeared on Meet the Press shortly after the attack, on New Year’s Day of 1989, very little was known about the details or motivations behind the Pan Am disaster. Sessions had said during the week before his appearance that it was still unclear whether the attack was the work of a terrorist group or an individual, and the journalists on the Meet the Press panel were intent on finding out new information. But Sessions frustrated their efforts for almost all of his appearance, and refused to label the bombing a terrorist attack. Early on in the interview, NBC News’ John Dancy jokingly exclaimed, “Well, you’re not very helpful this morning!” – to which Sessions replied, “I’m trying to be, but you ask tough questions.” You can watch the full exchange in the video below, including FBI Director Sessions’ discussion of the importance of caution in labeling a terrorist attack.
State Officials do not like to lie, which is why official documents sometimes use euphemisms, which are then spun by others to mean more than they say.
ReplyDeleteTherefore Sessions refusal to call Lockerbie a terrorist attack is most likely because he had no evidence that it was!
And this could explain why Madeleine Albright referred to Lockerbie as an accident!
Of course this is not evidence that it was an accident, but the decision whether something is a terrorist outrage or not is sometimes based on unreliable information!
For example, is Obama appointing a new FBI director because of the FBI’s failure to investigate the following information?
Google: Frame by frame analysis of crisis actors preparing double amputee actors at Boston bombing.
Dear Dave!
ReplyDeleteI read this post with interest and believe, that this is something of the best you have written.
"State Officials do not like to lie, which is why official documents sometimes use euphemisms, which are then spun by others to mean more than they say."
Yes! That is the hallmark of State Officials! (BTW also of politicians, lawyers, corporate spokesmen, representatives for sports unions, doctors and nursery school teachers, in my opinion.) All other professionals love to lie and make statements, that they have to correct moments later, when the results of ongoing investigations come in.
BTW, this thing 'spun by others to mean more than they say' - I think you could be so right!
"Therefore Sessions refusal to call Lockerbie a terrorist attack is most likely because he had no evidence that it was!"
Please explain.
Does that mean that you believe that one week after the Lockerbie disaster the investigation was not completed?
Ah, I see! It is rather, that you believe that there already was enough information for him to decide, but since he didn't say 'terror-attack' it probably indicates that it really wasn't?
"And this could explain why Madeleine Albright referred to Lockerbie as an accident!"
Well spotted! We clearly see strong indications here that the bomb theory simply did not have sufficient base in evidence, and that later postulates were made up.
"Of course this is not evidence that it was an accident"
And let me add I am sure that both of us are aware that in some aspects of the case there are a number of uncertainties and qualifications. And that there is a danger that by selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which might not fit, it is possible to read into a mass of conflicting evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified.
Anyway, we are ready with a conclusion:
It was a failing cargo door!
"but the decision whether something is a terrorist outrage or not is sometimes based on unreliable information!"
Who could disagree? There is indeed a danger that presented evidence may be wrong.
You are slowly convincing me that an approach, where theories are based on as little information as as possible, (thereby minimizing the above mentioned risk) indeed appears to be a natural choice!
Cheers!
“Civil servants do not like to lie or use euphemisms in official reports” – and normally they don’t, because it would be unprofessional to do so.
ReplyDeleteBut a dilemma arises on certain issues when they are instructed by their masters to produce a report to back up a political lie.
The dilemma is resolved by the use of euphemisms.
The Iraq dossier is a notorious example where civil servants where told to rewrite the report until a form of words were used that could be spun to mean more than they say.
I do not contend that Sessions or Albright’s comments are evidence of what caused the crash or that an open cargo door explanation is necessarily true.
But their comments do invite doubts and an open cargo door would constitute an accident.
This explanation can be easily resolved by examining the condition of the forward cargo door as part of the live investigation - and the reluctance to do so is revealing.