Editorial: It’s time for straight talk

Wednesday, Aug. 11, 2004 | 8:53 a.m.

In memos and e-mails uncovered by the Associated Press, two U.S. attorneys involved in last year's trial of four terror suspects in Detroit accuse Las Vegas officials of placing business interests ahead of the public's safety. The serious accusations, which are heatedly denied locally, are too fraught with generalities, conflicting accounts and questions to be given immediate credibility.

After two videos confiscated from terrorists by the Justice Department revealed images of Las Vegas, subsequent discussions here "didn't center on public alerts or heightened security. Rather, authorities worried about the effects on tourism and the casinos' legal liabilities," the AP reported.

One of the videos was found after police -- six days after 9/11 -- raided the Detroit apartment used by the terror suspects. It contained interior and exterior footage of the Excalibur, along with exterior footage of the MGM Grand and New York, New York casinos. The tape also included pre-9/11 scenes of New York City, including the World Trade Center. The other video was found in 2002 in Madrid by Spanish authorities who said they recovered it from an alleged al-Qaida cell. It reportedly shows similar footage of the same three hotels.

In March 2003, FBI agent Paul George flew to Las Vegas and met with two Metro Police detectives. That much is known. From there, however, the events become murky. The U.S. attorneys, according to the AP story, say George's mission was to show local authorities the tape seized in Detroit. Clark County Undersheriff Doug Gillespie, however, said Tuesday that Metro Police, along with Las Vegas-based FBI agents and resort security chiefs, viewed both videotapes on separate occasions in September 2002, six months before George came to Las Vegas. The group's conclusion, after viewing the tapes, was that they did not indicate any credible evidence of a terrorist threat in Las Vegas.

Gillespie told the Sun that George met with the two Metro officers because the FBI agent needed someone to escort him through the hotels that were on the videotapes, in order for that information to aid in the prosecution of the Detroit terror suspects.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Convertino, who prosecuted the Detroit suspects (two were found guilty of supporting terrorists), and Assistant U.S. Attorney Keith Corbett, however, are alleging otherwise. In an interview, Convertino quoted George as saying that top officials didn't meet with him because "if they heard this information they would have to act on it." In an e-mail to Assistant U.S. Attorney Sharon Lever in Las Vegas, Convertino says, "While I understand your previously stated concerns that the mayor of Las Vegas, the local sheriff and others believe our indictment may temporarily have a deleterious effect on the Las Vegas tourism industry ... " And Corbett is quoted by the AP as writing, "No one showed up except for the two Metro officers. Indeed, the casinos informed Agent George they did not want to show up because of concerns about liab ility."

The implication by the two U.S. attorneys is that Las Vegas officials consciously ignored a possible threat to Las Vegas so that tourists wouldn't cancel plans to come here. Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman (whose authority does not extend to the Strip where the videos were shot) spent most of Tuesday giving interviews to local and national reporters and TV anchors, denying that he or any other local official muffled a threat.

Convertino's credibility has been questioned by the Justice Department, which is investigating whether he withheld evidence during the trial. Meanwhile, he's claiming the Justice Department did not help him prosecute the case and actually interfered. That whole mess may not be resolved any time soon.

But the conflicting remarks regarding Las Vegas must be addressed immediately. All involved should cooperate on getting to the bottom of the serious implications and discrepancies. If federal officials really thought the tapes represented a threat to Las Vegas, we should have been told and local officials should have cooperated on a plan for heightened -- and visible -- security. Las Vegas residents, and now the country, need a detailed explanation from federal and local authorities. This way we could show what we've learned from 9/11 -- that communication and accurate information are vital to our security.