Hot Buttons: Talk show topics

NEW YORKER: HIJACKERS WEREN'T SO SLICK

According to a report by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker, several of the Sept. 11 hijackers took cross-country flights -- together and separately -- in a series of overt acts that could have led investigators to uncover the plot.

Investigators had said that they believe Al Qaeda terrorists operated in independent cells, making it next to impossible for the intelligence community to notice a conspiracy. Now they tell Hersh the terrorists worked together extensively before the attacks.

"We early on thought people on flight one did not know anything about flights two, three and four, but we did find that there was cross-pollination in travel and coordination," said an FBI official. "If they're so good, why did they intermingle?"

Hersh told an interviewer on Tuesday that hijackers did such a poor job disguising their plans that they "might as well have been the Marx Brothers."

The New Yorker report may put new pressure on the White House and FBI Director Robert Mueller to account for intelligence breakdowns leading up to Sept. 11. Mueller is expected to announce a major reorganization of the FBI on Wednesday.

Mueller's agency has come under increasing criticism following the disclosure of memos from field agents warning about the possible involvement in the plot of terror suspect Zacarias Moussaoui, and about the potential danger involved in flight school training in Arizona by Middle Eastern students.

-- Do you expect more damaging revelations about what the FBI knew before Sept. 11 that might have been useful to other U.S. intelligence agencies, if the FBI had shared it?

-- If it is necessary to examine at length what went wrong with U.S. intelligence prior to Sept. 11, is there a danger that focusing too much on that matter will distract the government from trying to head off more attacks?

SO MUCH FOR REFORM LEGISLATION

The Los Angeles Times reported that leading business groups have put up enough opposition to help stall legislative reform that had been initiated in response to the financial collapse of Enron Corp., and that prospects are fading for Congress to finish work on bills involving accounting and pension issues brought to light by the company's failure.

"It is unlikely that we will get strong reform unless there is a new event that captures the (public) imagination," said Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), who is promoting legislation to address the issues involved in the Enron scandal.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.) pulled his own bill last week -- a bill that would reform accounting practices -- when it became clear that he did not have the votes on his own committee to approve the bill. The Times reported that Senate Democratic leaders, fearing they lack the votes for passage, have kept pension reform legislation off the Senate agenda, even though it was approved in committee two months ago.

Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told the paper that business' campaign to prevent the Democratic legislation is getting support from both parties.

"When you see them pull back like that," he said, "it means they know they have problems on their side of the aisle, not just with Republicans."

At the height of the Enron scandal earlier this year, President Bush proposed both pension and accounting reforms. But legislative sources told the paper that so far, the White House has played virtually no role in trying to bring legislation to the Bush's desk.

-- Are you surprised to learn that little, if anything, in federal law will change as a result of the Enron scandal?

-- Is the close balance of power in Congress more responsible than any other factor for making it so difficult to pass legislative reform addressing accounting and pension issues?

HONOR CODE?

The University of Maryland has a new policy on cheating, politely requesting that students sign an oath when they turn in papers and tests swearing that they did not cheat.

Student leaders initiated the pledge, which took effect at the beginning of the spring semester, as a way of reinforcing the university's 12-year-old honor system. Supporters said the pledge might help by reminding students to think about values when they're ready to turn in their work.

The pledge -- which states in part: "I pledge on my honor that I have not given or received any unauthorized assistance on this examination" -- is printed on most tests and in the "blue books" commonly used for essay exams. There is no penalty for a student not signing the pledge.

An estimated 100 colleges and universities have honor codes like the one that was instituted at Maryland in 1990. Written pledges are less commonplace.

-- If a student is prepared to cheat, what good is an oath against cheating?

-- If signing the pledge is not mandatory, is it a waste of time and resources to print it on tests and blue books?