TSA to lay off airport screeners

While insisting that we can afford the tax cuts Bush wants to give (which will primarily benefit the rich), the Transportaion Security Administration has announced that it has to lay off 6,000 airport screeners.

So, while the Bush administration brags about it's "successful" War on Terror™, states are struggling to make ends meet, and, due at least in part to of the costs necessitated by the federal government's "terror alert" code, are having to look at cutting back on basic services such as educational funding and even some safety services; and now the TSA is having to cut back on the number of security screeners it employs. In the meantime, the government is cutting back on our civil liberties (and complaining that other countries - such as Canada - "care too much" about the civil liberties for their own citizens) - claiming the loss of these rights is necessary for our own "security".

I would think that if the government is as concerned about security as it likes to say it is, Bush and the Republicans would be more willing to reduce the tax cuts they're proposing, and put that money towards ensuring that the states have the money they need to increase security when the government declares an "orange" or higher alert, and that we can have an adequate number of airport screeners (and other security personnel) on the job.

Powder scare - Washington & Florida

There are currently reports of two different discoveries of mysterious powders - one in Florida and another in Tacoma.

According to CNN:

A mail distribution center in Tacoma, Washington, was evacuated early Tuesday after a powdery brown substance initially tested positive for the toxins that cause botulism and plague, federal officials said.

The officials emphasized that initial field tests often prove to be inaccurate.

On the scene, Jolene Davis of the Tacoma Fire Department said she was not aware of any reports that the sustance had tested positive for botulism or plague toxins. She also said four out of five subsequent tests of the substance had proved to be negative, with one test still pending.

As for the situation in Florida, MSNBC is reporting:

IN FLORIDA, emergency crews were investigating a white powder found in the air cargo building at Southwest Florida International Airport near Fort Myers. Six people were taken to a hospital for possible decontamination. The air cargo building is separate from the main terminal and the investigation did not affect passenger travel.

More information as it becomes available.

The search for WMD

The Bush administration seems to be finally acknowledging that maybe the intelligence they had prior to the war may not have been nearly as good as they thought it was. The Washington Post and MSNBC are reporting that "planners and those participating in the hunt" worried that information and materials related to WMD may have been stolen during the looting and chaos that has been plaguing Iraq since Saddam's regime fell.

It seems to me that this is just more evidence that the Bush administration simply did not plan at all well (or maybe they just didn't plan at all) for what to do after the main fighting of the war had been completed and the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq began. While they managed to have a company of Marines available to secure the Ministry of Oil, there has been a great deal of condemnation for the many other things that we seem to have been able to secure. Sadly, while the loss of the national treasues of the Iraqi museums and libraries is cultural tragedy, the lack of security for the sites the administration believed were locations where WMD may have been being manufactured or stored could end up being catastrophic.

[I]f such weapons or the means of making them have indeed been removed from the centralized control of former Iraqi officials, high-ranking U.S. officials acknowledged, then the war may prove to aggravate the proliferation threat that President Bush said he fought to forestall.

“It’s a danger,” Douglas J. Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, said in a telephone interview. There are signs, he said, “that some of the looting is actually strategic.” Former Baath Party and Iraqi government officials appear to be “doing at least some of the looting” of government facilities, he said, “including those that might have records or materials” relating to weapons of mass destruction.” [Emphasis mine]

It is absolutely ridiculous that the Bush administration did not have better plans for securing the sites they believed were likely to hold key evidence for the WMDs they claim Iraq has. Apparently, it has only been in the last few days that they have been moving to get the sites they have not yet checked secured, though it may already be too late there, as well.

The article also mentions the report from yesterday that the administration has spoken to an unnamed scientist who supposedly has led officials to samples of chemicals that might have been able to be used in creating chemical weapons, but experts caution that almost any chemical that can be used in creating chemical weapons will also have legitimate civilian uses. Even Donald Rumsfeld was hesitant to make any claims based on this reported find, saying only that he had "nothing to add" to the vague reports that have been released about it.

In other news regarding the search for WMDs, Hans Blix has accused the US of having tried to discredit the UN inspector's work in order to futher their justificaion for the war, such as leaking information that Blix had not included in oral reports given to the UN (for example, when he didn't mention the "drone" that Iraq had - and which turned out to be little more than a remote control "model" airplane made of balsa wood). He also noted once again his concern that the US and UK had taken seriously documents the International Atomic Energy Agency has "easily" determined were false, and said that the question of just who falisfied the documents was "disturbing".

Though the US has said that they do not seen any "immediate role" for a return of the UN inspectors, many on the council feel "independent UN verification that the weapons have been destroyed would help to win international support for the swift lifting of economic sanctions against Iraq."

In my opinion, if we're having such difficulty finding any evidence of the WMDs and are concerned that whatever evidence may remain could possibly be stolen or, worse, sold or given to other enemies of ours, it would be logical to begin working with the UN again on weapons inspections, and allow them to assist us in the search.

This is not a situation in which we should be worried about petty disagreement or "saving face". We should be worrying that, if, in fact, there are WMDs in Iraq - as the Bush administration has assured us there are - they need to be found and identified.

Letting a robber guard the bank

In a move that is apparently supposed to make people concerned about their privacy being violated feel more at ease with the work of the Homeland Security department, a new "privacy czar" has been appointed.  The Bush administration is known for making odd appointments, from putting Admiral John Poindexter in charge of the "Total Information Awareness" program to making John Ashcroft the Attorney General.  This one, though, almost managed to defy belief.

The new Homeland Security privacy czar is a former executive from Doubleclick - an online advertising firm that has been roundly criticized for their continued efforts to make as much money from gathering demographic information as possible and showing little, if any, regard for the privacy rights of individuals.

O'Connor Kelly's appointment comes as the Bush administration is under fire for data-mining plans like Total Information Awareness and CAPPS II, which profiles airline passengers. When debating the creation of the department last year, Congress required that the secretary appoint an official to ensure that new technologies sustain privacy protections and to verify that the agency's massive databases operate within federal guidelines.

I suppose it could be argued that an executive from a company that has seemingly broken ground in the various ways someone's privacy can be invaded is likely to know most of the various tricks used to do so, and as such, can help better safeguard people's privacy from the government.  For some reason, though, I don't find that idea very comforting.

Link via Secular Blasphemy

Bush, 9/11, Homeland Security and money

Earlier this month, I had a post about the way Homeland Security funding was being distributed, and the impact the lack of federal funds was having on a number of states.  The money is being distributed in two ways:  first, states are given equal portions from one part of the funding, then the rest is distributed based on the state's population.  If this sounds familiar, its because its the same basic basic concept as the methods used to determing how many Congressional seats are alotted to each state (each state gets 2 Senate seats and House seats are based on population), which also determines how many electoral votes a state has. 

I had also commented on Paul Krugman's column which explained this distribution pattern, and noted that, just as the formula gives disproportionate power to smaller states in elections, it also gives smaller states more money per capita for Homeland Security than larger ones, even though the larger states also contain areas that are more likely to be targets for terrorist attacks.  Krugman also pointed out that these smaller states are very valuable to George Bush right now because those are states which tend to be more likely to vote Republican than many of the larger, and largely Democratic, states.  The issue, however, goes beyond a matter of whether this distribution scheme is "fair" or not, and is having serious practical implications for states like California, which is having to cut back on education spending in order to provide it's citizens with reasonable protection from potential threats. 

Today, Eric Alterman writes, in part, about the impact the lack of federal Homeland Security funding is having in New York, and the picture he paints is grim, indeed.

The Economist compares New York City to Atlas, bearing the weight of the world on its shoulders. Already reeling from a massive deficit, declining income and the economic aftershocks of 9/11, the city must pay an estimated $1 billion a year for emergency and counterterrorism costs. Bush could care less. After attempting to stiff New York entirely, Congress has finally agreed to kick in about $200 million, far more than Bush proposed. My shaken city can ill afford to make up the difference. It already has 4,000 fewer cops than it did two years ago but must assign more than a thousand of those remaining to the terrorist beat. It may shutter forty fire companies. Massive layoffs, tax hikes and cutbacks in every kind of social service are in the offing. And Gotham is hardly alone. Enhanced security measures cost the nation's cities an estimated $2.6 billion in the fifteen months after 9/11.

There's a certain level of perverseness in the way the Bush administration raises the flag of 9/11 every time it wants to restrict our civil rights or violate our privacy just a bit more (and how they waved that flag for all it was worth to convince people that we should go bomb Iraq), yet they don't want to spend any real money to help make us any safer than we were before the attacks happened. As with everything else, 9/11 only matters when it serves their purposes.  If remembering all the lives lost on that day and trying to prevent a similar tragedy in the future is going to require them to do something they don't want (say, for example, not cutting taxes so there might be more money to fund security programs), then it seems to become irrelevent. 

Personally, I'd rather see us not cut taxes - and maybe even raise them a bit (not a lot, but some) to provide more funds for Homeland Security measures if those measures would help us be able to protect ourselves without needing to cut into our civil rights or privacy.  Since the neocons seem to want more police power and fewer individual rights, however, I doubt that even if they had unlimited funds, they'd be willing to give back any of the power and rights they've already taken.

Alterman also point out, though, that the problems with the way the Bush administration is handling Homeland Security go beyond just an uneven distribution of funds.  He points out that on several occasions, Bush has blocked even cost-effective means of increasing security. 

Several investigations by the media have found serious problems with security at power plants, yet there has been little movement to provide legal mandates or funding for power plant operators to increase security.  Bush's own energy secretary had provided a report indicating how much it would cost just to begin increasing power plan security, but Bush would only agree to propose 7% of that amount.

Some other examples:

Bush refused to compensate healthcare workers injured or killed by the smallpox inoculation program. His budget is squeezing the Coast Guard, in charge of port security. He is starving "first responders"--the very heroes of 9/11 to whom he dishonestly promised so much. And the Customs Service got not a single penny in new funding in the Administration's budget. With everyone losing sleep over "loose nukes" falling into terrorist hands, Bush even tried to cut overseas nuclear security funding by 5 percent.

These are not minor issues.  The atmosphere in Washington is such that Ted Stevens, R-AK, felt comfortable saying that he didn't think first responders deserve overtime pay if they're responding to a national emergency:

But also there were powerful people such as Senate Appropriations Committee chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) suggesting that rather than lobbying for more money, the emergency workers should be volunteering their overtime out of a concern for national security.

"Those people overseas in the desert," Stevens said, "they're not getting paid overtime ... I don't know why the people working for the cities and counties ought to be paid overtime when they are responding to matters of national security."

Of course, Stevens seems to be overlooking the fact that combat troops do get "combat pay", which does help provide some (though not nearly enough, in my opinion) extra compensation during times when their lives are on the line.

In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC, Bush's response was great.  He set a great tone of unity and cooperation, and helped bring many parts of this nation together.  For those first few weeks, he actually showed himself to be the "uniter" he has claimed he is.  Since then, however, his track record has been abyssmal.  September 11 now is only remembered when it's politically expedient, and Homeland Security only matters when it can be used to increase governmental power.  When it comes to matters of governmental responsiblity or - Gods forbid - a need for the government to spend money, forget it.  It no longer matters.

And, of course, it will be we who suffer for it in the long run.

Funding Homeland Security

Tuesday, I made a post about how funding for Homeland Security is being distributed using a forumla that gives lower-population states disproportionately more money for security measures than states with large populations.  A story in the Washington Post today helps point out the practical impact this distribution formula is having:

Responding to the recently elevated national terror threat level, Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn deployed scores of police officers to secure Los Angeles International Airport, target of a foiled millennium terrorist bomb plot. But with heightened citywide security costing $1 million a week and a budget deficit expected to exceed $200 million, Hahn couldn't do it alone. He asked the state to send in the National Guard.

The state, however, was staggering under a deficit topping $30 billion. Already, Gov. Gray Davis was moving to raise taxes, lay off thousands of schoolteachers and cut half a million adults off Medicaid. Still, Davis sent 50 National Guardsmen to LAX. Chalk up $100,000 a week more to cut elsewhere.

California, of course, is not alone.

Governors and mayors said they are not skimping on public safety, but as a result, they are skimping on much else. "These responsibilities are unprecedented, and it's an extra cost burden when none of us can absorb it," said Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R). "If you put extra personnel on bridges, you're taking money from public schools or telling scholarship students they can't go to college or taking medicine from elderly people. We're beyond the point of inconveniencing people. We're close to hurting them."

Bush recently announced an additional $2 billion in funding for Homeland Security, of which $500 million is being set aside specifically for "enhanced wartime security costs" through June of this year, with $50 million of that earmarked for large metropolitan areas - an attempt by the Bush administration to answer concerns about large-population centers not getting adequate funding for their needs.  Fifty million, however, is what it would take the state of New York - including New York City - to pay for 4 weeks of increased security.

The article also offers more specific information on how much funding various states are getting, showing the disparity between the large- and small-population states:

Just how thorny was clear in the initial round of Homeland Security grants released this year -- about $600 million nationally. Despite a concentration of likely terror targets in population centers, smaller states received much more money per capita than large ones, with California and New York running last. California received $1.33 per person and New York $1.38, while Wyoming got $9.78, Vermont, $8.15 and Alaska, $7.97. The national average was $3.29. (The study was done by New York City and compared the largest states with the smallest; it did not include Maryland or Virginia.)

In other Homeland Security spending news, the Republicans today rejected an attempt by the Democrats to provide additional funding for security at ports.

As they have done for weeks, Democrats argued that security for U.S. airports, nuclear facilities and other domestic safety programs was being shortchanged. Among their amendments was one by Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.) to add $1 billion to upgrade safety at U.S. ports, which was defeated by a near party-line vote of 52-47.

''We are in a crisis,'' Hollings said, arguing that the nation's ports are ''the most vulnerable targets that you could possibly imagine.''

The Senate bill contains $4.2 billion for the new Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard and state and local security and emergency agencies. Democrats wanted to boost that to $9 billion.

Somehow, seeing the Republicans refusing to provide additional funds to help secure our airports, shipping ports and nuclear facilities seems to undermind the claims that fighting the "War on Terror^TM" is a priority. It also leaves open the question as to why "preventing terrorism" is important enough for us to send our troops into Iraq, killing and injuring who knows how many American and UK soldiers, not to mention the untold casualties among the Iraqi civilians and military personnel, but it's not important enough to allocate additional funds for necessary security upgrades at some of our most vulnerable locations - or even to distribute money for security in such a way that the areas most as risk get the most money to work with.

Inequality and insecurity

Paul Krugman writes this week about how the money that is supposed to go towards ensuring "homeland security" appears to be being distributed less on a basis of where it might be needed than one of where it might secure the most electoral votes.  He notes that a review of Department of Homeland Security's spending formula, the government will be spending seven times as much on each resident of Wyoming as it will on each resident in New York. 

How does this relate to the electoral votes?  The formula being used is set up similar to the way the distribution of electoral votes is set up.  There is a portion of the funding that provides an equal grant to every state, regardless of population, and a second portion of the funding that is divided in proportion to each state's population.  Just as the electoral college winds up giving small states a disproportionately "louder" voice than many large states have, the homeland security funding formula gives those same smaller states a larger slice of the pie when viewed on a per capita basis.

Where this becomes problematic is that states with large populations almost invariably are also states with large urban centers - the kind of densly populated areas that terrorists are most likely to target.  While it's true that terrorists can target anywhere, it is far more likely that they will pick a New York City or Los Angeles than Casper, Wyoming.  Yet, with the way the money is being divided between the states, Wyoming can afford far better protection for each one of its citizens than New York or Los Angeles will be able to. 

As Krugman notes, its probably no coincidence that the Department of Homeland Security is granting proportionally more funds to smaller, less urban-oritented states, since those same states are generally Republican strongholds, making it important to Bush, and the Republican party, to keep them very happy.

Unfortunately, keeping them happy, in this case, means leaving the largely Democrat-oriented, urban areas more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. I suppose that's one way to help make your opponants less of a threat come election time....

An afternoon smile

From today's Top 5 List: Rejected Homeland Security Slogans

The Stealthy, Sneaky, Privacy-Invading Alert-Issuing Hide-Under-Your-Bed-While-Bush-Bombs-Iraq Agency

I couldn't have said it better myself :)

If a nuclear bomb explodes in your area, please head in a different direction...

If you haven't visited the new Department of Homeland Security site, "Be Informed", you probably should.  Not for any valuable information, but because the site is pathetically hilarious in a totally unintentional way.  Be sure, in particular, to check out the visual section on "Nuclear Blast". Below is an actual graphics from that site, demonstrating the best way to get away from a nuclear explosion.

As you can see from that example (and believe me, the rest of the site is about the same), the site is ripe for parodies, and I've found a couple really good ones.   Be sure to check them out at:

http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/000290.html

and

http://www.idlewords.com/nuclear_blast.htm

The lastest twist on destroying the villiage to save it...

The government is going to be running ads on how to be ready for a terrorist attack (yep, duct tape is still on the list).  They say the ads are designed to educate without scaring, but somehow I can't see too many ways the government can tell people how to be ready, without people somehow getting the idea that an attack is imminent. 

At any rate, part of the reason for the ad campaign is that the government is concerned that going to war against Iraq make make the country "more vulnerable to an attack".  The logic here just kills me (and I hope I'm meaning that figuratively).  One of the supposed justifications for the war is that Iraq may help sponsor terrorism and we need to get rid of Saddam to protect ourselves from potential terrorist attacks.  We just may make ourselves more likely to get attacked in the process.

The funny thing is, I don't remember falling through any rabbit holes....

Oops, they did it again

False Alarm?

Terror Alert Partly Based on Fabricated Information

By Brian Ross, Len Tepper and Jill Rackmill
ABCNews.com

Feb. 13 — A key piece of the information leading to recent terror alerts was fabricated, according to two senior law enforcement officials in Washington and New York.

 

[...] The officials said that a claim made by a captured al Qaeda member that Washington, New York or Florida would be hit by a "dirty bomb" sometime this week had proven to be a product of his imagination.

The informant described a detailed plan that an al Qaeda cell operating in either Virginia or Detroit had developed a way to slip past airport scanners with dirty bombs encased in shoes, suitcases, or laptops, sources told ABCNEWS. The informant reportedly cited specific targets of government buildings and Christian or clerical centers.

[...] It was only after the threat level was elevated to orange — meaning high — last week, that the informant was subjected to a polygraph test by the FBI, officials told ABCNEWS.

"This person did not pass," said Cannistraro.

[...] Despite the fabricated report, there are no plans to change the threat level. Officials said other intelligence has been validated and that the high level of precautions is fully warranted.

Well, I wouldn't say it's time to put the duct tape back into storage, but once again, it looks like there's not quite as much to worry about as the government would have had us believe. 

This isn't the first time, of course, that an informant has lied to The Powers That Be, nor is the first time they've been caught with their pants down.  How long did the news broadcasts remind us to be on the lookout for five suspicious men who'd snuck into the country before someone figured out that they didn't actually exist?  And, of course, several of the alerts from last summer - possible attacks by scuba divers, attacks on apartment buildings, attacks on banks, and others - eventually turned out to be questionable as well.

Personally, I think it's beyond inexcusable for them to raise the threat level and release information on "potential" actions without having first done a reasonably thorough verification that the information - and informant - are reliable.  True, lie detector tests aren't 100% accurate.  Very little is in intelligence gathering; but any informant reporting a potential threat of such significance that they're contemplating putting the entire country on alert should be subjected to a lie detector at the very least.  Doing the test after the alert has been sounded is not only pointless, it's also dangerous - and not just because of the contribution it makes to alert fatigue.

Think about it.  We have someone in custody whose best interests are served by giving us "information" on possible threats - if TPTB think he's telling the truth, he's likely to get a better deal out of them, and they'll put the country on alert and, even if the informant's group doesn't get to actually kill a bunch of us, they still get to have put us all in fear (which, of course, is a form of non-lethal terrorism).  But it goes beyond even that.  If he's lying, but convinces TPTB that there is a threat and they put out an alert, once the truth comes out that it was a false alarm, we all get just that much more skeptical about the alerts, and maybe pay that much less attention to them

There's one other danger, though, that comes with not giving a lie detector test until after the cats out of the bag.  What if he was telling the truth.  What if the threat this terrorist reported to TPTB is real.  TPTB issue the alert, we all get nervous, blah, blah blah.  Then someone gets the bright idea that maybe they should give this guy a lie detector test, just in case they've worried us all for nothing. Presuming that the terrorist isn't stupid, and that he still has some loyalties to the people he was working with before he was captured,  all of a sudden he's got a way to help them out - courtesy of our own law enforcement officials.  We all know that someone can fool a lie detector test into thinking that they're telling the truth.  Why couldn't they fool it into thinking they're telling a lie?  The benefit to our terrorist and his friends would be that now we're all thinking that we're safe, we'll let our guard down that much more, and we become that much more resistant to future warnings, and law enforcement is going to focus their energy on other possible threats.  It just became that much easier for the plan to go forward - and to make TPTB look even more like fools than just falling for a liar does. 

It's paranoia fun?

Terror alert warning warning

New tonight - information you need about the potential dangers of being prepared in the event of a terror attack!

You read that right - there are dangers to being prepared.  My local news tonight did a story about growing concern that some people may be going overboard in their preparations for a potential terror attack, and may be putting themselves at risk because of it. 

Now, granted, they have a valid point - for all the talk lately about getting duct tape and plastic sheeting to cover windows and cracks in the home (to prevent chemical or biological agents from seeping into your house), little has been said about the fact that you can actually over-seal a home.

In general, structures need some form of outside ventilation to bring in new air.  Additionally, in homes with gas furnaces or appliances, fresh air is needed to help keep the by-products of burning gas (which include carbon monoxide - lethal in and of itself) from building up.  The concern is that some people will decide that if sealing up one or two rooms is good, sealing up the entire house is that much better.

Still, there's just something about getting warnings about following the advice of previous warnings is a bit on the surrealistic side.  As if the world wasn't feeling screwy enough right now, even safety can be hazardous to you.

The only thing we have to fear...

We're currently under an "orange" alert, meaning that the risk of a terrorist attack is heightened, though no one can yet say when it might happen, where, what kind of attack it might be or anything else useful.  Granted, we need to be aware to be on alert, but the vagueness of it all tends to make me feel more helpless than secure.

Of course, sometimes I think the attack is already underway - and that rather than a biological, chemical, nuclear or physical attack, we're being attacked through our news media.  The news these last few days has been filled with news of one new potential threat after another.  India test-launching a missle that can reach Pakistan.  Iran reprocessing spent uranium fuel and mining uranium in their pursuit of nuclear weapons.  North Korea having an untested missle that could reach the US.  Saddam using his civilians as "human shields" so he can blame us for the massive casualties that will result and get more people mad at us. The military being concerned enough about the possiblity of a biological or chemical attack against our troops in Iraq that they're talking about making arrangements to cremate soldiers who are killed in such an attack (to prevent the further spread of whatever agent they're attacked with), rather than returning them home in flag-draped coffins. The government telling us to put together "disaster kits", including plastic sheeting and duct tape to help seal up our windows in the event of a chemical or biological attack.

Yeah, I'd have to say I'm feeling pretty terrorized right now.

The truth will out

Hesiod at Counterspin Center (if you're not reading it yet, you should check it out) has sussed out Bush's most recent plan to solve all his problems:

ECONOMIC STIMULUS: A Ha! Now we find out why the Bush administration issued an Orange alert, and told everyone to stock up on disaster supplies. It was to stimulate the retail sector!

Warning fatigue

FBI Alert for Five Men Based on Hoax - ABC News

Jan. 6

— WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The FBI has concluded the information that led to a hunt for five men thought to have entered the United States illegally on Christmas Eve was fabricated by an informant, ABC News reported on Monday.

Citing unnamed sources, the report said the informant identified as Michael John Hamdani, who was arrested in Canada, made up the story about 19 men who sought false passports in an attempt to get himself off the hook on criminal charges he was facing in the United States.

In the months since the Pentagon and World Trade Center attacks, we have heard countless warnings and alerts about "possible" terrorist attacks or other terrorist activity.  To date, none of them have amounted to anything.  Whether this is because there was nothing to them to begin with, or that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have managed to thwart them, or, perhaps, because once their plans were announced, the terrorists decided to back off, is unknown.  What is known is that the more often we are warned or alerted and see that nothing has happened, the less likely we become to pay attention to the next warning or alert.

In this most recent case, the FBI asked for the help from US citizens and residents to find 5 people who may have snuck into the US for unknown or undetermined reasons.  While I doubt that too many people went out of their way to try and find these guys, I don't doubt that there were at least some people keeping their eyes open, and even more who were frightened by the possiblity for another terrorist attack raised by the manhunt.  Yes, as before, nothing happened.  Worse, we now learn that the whole incident was based on a hoax from a prisoner trying to make his own situation easier.

Its been speculated that several of the other warnings came from another prisoner, who may have made them up either to gain more lenient treatment for himself, or to try keeping us off-balance and in a constant state of fear - in effect, trying to help his compatriots even though he's been captured and imprisoned by the US.  There's no proof that this is the case, but it has been a concern.

It's hard to know, any more, how "alert" one should be.  We certainly can't trust that the FBI is only going to pass on reliable warnings - especially since they, themselves, seem to be unable to confirm a warnings reliability until much later - in many cases, not until after the date the alert warns about.  Yet we don't want to fall into complacency, becuase the threat of future attacks is very real.

One possible solution would be for the FBI, when issuing a warning or alert, to assign it a "reliability level" - similar to the "threat assessment level", but - hopefully - without the colour scheme - so that people will have an idea of how serious an issue it is.  If the warning is issued with a reliability level of, say, 1 - meaning that it's unverified or unverifiable - and is based on a statement from only one person, then we know that we should probably take some extra care, but it's not time to panic by any stretch of the imagination.  A warning with a reliability level of 5 - meaning that they have verified this threat through multiple sources or have other reason to believe that it is a very significant possiblity, would let us know that this is something to take very seriously, to the point of considering changing any plans or routines if necessary. 

Without something of that nature, I'm afraid that we may start treating all warnings and alerts as routinely as we treat the weather -- and if you think about how many people you see dashing through the rain with no umbrella or other head covering, you'll have a pretty good idea of just how seriously that is.

Shining a small spot of light on a confusing subject

Taming the Task of Checking for Terrorists' Names

By SARAH MILSTEIN

[...] Take, for instance, the name "Abd al-Rahman," which can be a given name or a surname, depending on its culture of origin. When transliterated from the Arabic into Latin characters, the name has three parts, the first two of which are prefixes for Rahman, meaning "slave of" or "servant of."

But when an English speaker hears the name, it tends to sound like "Abdurrahman." A person writing it down based simply on how it sounds could easily spell it as one word and in a way that shares few characters with the transliterated version. [...]

In all the condemnations of the INS, FBI, CIA and other agencies (including my own), this is a factor that has actually been somewhat overlooked.  I know I hadn't considered it at all until I read this article yesterday - and yet, in retrospect, I feel like I should.

Transliterating names from a non-English alphabet into our own letters is hardly an exact science.  I remember how, during the years when Kaddaffi was in the news on a regular basis, I found it confusing to see his name written in such a wide variety of ways.  Sometimes the first sound was written as a K, Kh, Q, Qu, G, or Gh, and whether the "d" sound in the middle and the "f" sound at the end were represented by single letters, double letters or one of each led to an abundence of spellings -- none of which could be considered "official" or "correct".  The article also notes that there are over 200 ways that "Mohammad" can be spelled in English.

Now, none of this excuses the vast majority of the lapses that we've seen from our security and law enforcement agencies.  By and large, they have failed us in far too many ways.  This issue, however, does help explain at least where some problems may originate.  Much of our intel is dependent on watch lists, and if the names are spelled one way on the watch list and a different way the passports or visas - especially if the difference is as great as the example quoted above ("Abd al-Rahman" vs "Abdurrahman") - it may be somewhat more understandable when someone slips through the cracks.

The Homeland Security Department Quiz (from truthout.com)

[Note from Kriselda:Truthout.com suggest circulating this piece via pamphlets. Since I seem to have a mysterious aversion to paper, I'm "pamphleting" it here, and have added a couple notes where I felt it was needed.]

(*Editors Note | For those TruthOut Readers wishing to become more involved in raising public awareness, this piece by William Rivers Pitt is ideal for pamphleting. You might consider printing it out and circulating it by hand in your community. I suspect the responses you would get might be well worth the price of admission. -- ma)

Take the Homeland Security Quiz!
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Sunday, 1 December, 2002

Question One: Do you approve of the new Homeland Security Department, signed into law by President Bush?

Background: On November 25th, 2002, President Bush signed into law legislation that created a new Homeland Security Department. Called for in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, this new department will merge 22 different government agencies and over 170,000 government employees into one unit. The stated purpose of the new Homeland Security Department is to defend America against future terrorist attacks.

a) Yes, I approve
b) No, I do not approve
c) I am not sure

Question Two: Do you approve of the creation of a 'Total Information Awareness' database by the Department of Defense that will track a wide variety of data regarding every American citizen?

Background: The 'Total Information Awareness' database is the brainchild of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the research and development core of the Department of Defense. The database will gather data regarding credit card purchases, telephone calls made, websites visited, academic grades received, surveys taken, sweepstakes entered, property purchased, financial records, magazine subscriptions, medical procedures and so forth. The data will reveal not only shopping habits but an overall picture of personal lifestyle, including everything from pets owned to religious preferences. Every American will be subject to its scrutiny. It will be run by Admiral John Poindexter, who was criminally convicted in 1990 for lying to Congress, destroying official documents and obstruction of justice in the Iran/Contra scandal.

a) Yes, I approve
b) No, I do not approve
c) I am not sure

[Note from Kriselda: According to the most recent reports I've read, the database and data mining system is being developed by the Office of Information Awareness, under the leadership of Admira John Poindexter, but once the system is ready for implimentation, it is supposed to be turned over to the Justice department for them to actually use.  Poindexter's involvement, however, is still very troublesome, given his significant role in the Iran/Contra scandal, his his belief that it was his duty to lie to the President and the people.  In addition, if the database and data mining tools are turned over to the Attorney General, that could potentially put John Ashcroft in a position to be able to access extremely detailed data on any citizen, a prospect that should be of concern to anyone.]

Question Three: Do you believe that citizens should be allowed to sue in civil court the Eli Lilly Pharmaceutical Corporation for the production of products which cause autism in children?

Background: For more than 40 years, the Eli Lilly Corporation developed and sold a mercury-based preservative used in many vaccines against childhood diseases. The preservative, called thimerosal, has been linked to the development of autism in children exposed to it. 45 lawsuits have already been filed by parents against Eli Lilly. These lawsuits seek to establish Eli Lilly's liability regarding the development of autism in these children.

a) Yes, these parents should be allowed to sue Eli Lilly in civil court b) No, these parents should not be allowed to sue Eli Lilly in civil court
c) I am not sure

Question Four: Do you approve of the Freedom of Information Act?

Background: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was passed in 1966 to allow public access to records and documents created by federal agencies. Since its passage, all fifty states have passed their own versions of the FOIA. The Supreme Court, in a case entitled NLRB v. Robbins Tire Co. in 1978, spoke of the importance of the Act: "The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed."

a) Yes, I approve
b) No, I do not approve
c) I am not sure

Question Five: Do you approve of an investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001?

Background: On September 11th, 2001, four commercial airliners were hijacked by terrorists. Two were flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, causing the Towers to collapse. A third was piloted into the Pentagon in Washington DC, and a fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. Close to 3,000 people perished in these attacks. In the nearly 500 days since, little has come to light regarding how American intelligence agencies failed to perceive the threat. None of the perpetrators who planned the attacks have been apprehended, including the mastermind, Osama bin Laden. The manner in which these terrorists were funded has likewise gone unexplored, as have many other pressing questions. A thorough investigation will serve to reveal the information behind these questions and take a large step towards ensuring that such an attack can never happen again.

a) Yes, I approve of a 9/11 investigation
b) No, I do not approve of a 9/11 investigation
c) I am not sure

Question Six: Did you know that the 'Total Information Awareness' database, under the stewardship of Admiral Poindexter and the Department of Defense, is an integral part of the new Homeland Security legislation, and will begin mining for data soon?

a) Yes, I knew that
b) No, I did not know that

[Note from Kriselda:  How soon "soon" is is unclear.  Some reports I'm aware of have implied that "soon" means within the next few months, probably less than a year.  Others have indicated that the project it still in deveopment and that it will probably be a year or more before they actually have it available to start analyzing all the data of our lives.]

Question Seven: Did you know that the Eli Lilly Pharmaceutical Corporation was granted immunity from lawsuit and liability regarding the autism allegations in the new Homeland Security legislation, because they are under contract to produce bioweapons vaccines for the federal government?

a) Yes, I knew that
b) No, I did not know that

Question Eight: Did you know that the Freedom of Information Act has been severely curtailed by the new Homeland Security legislation, because public data on the actions of federal agencies is now considered a "potential security weakness?"

a) Yes, I knew that
b) No, I did not know that

Question Nine: Did you know that, thanks to new restrictions on the Freedom of Information Act which will be decided upon on a case by case basis by the same department that manages the Total Information Awareness database, an effective investigation into what happened on September 11th, 2001 is now a practical impossibility?

a) Yes, I knew that
b) No, I did not know that

[Note from Kriselda: I consider this to be a bit of an overstatement, though I have no doubt that the FOIA restrictions will make investigating 9/11 much more difficult than it might have been otherwise (which, I'm sure, is no accident - Bush has been against this investigation since the attacks happened), but if the right people are investigating with the intent to actually find out what happened and how we might prevent it, I do think it could be largely successful.  Those are some pretty big "ifs", though...]

Question Ten: Do you approve of the new Homeland Security Department, signed into law by President Bush?

a) Yes, I approve
b) No, I do not approve
c) I am not sure

© : t r u t h o u t 2002