Homeland Security Discussion

[Elvado]

How else is that buffoon still employed today? Her performance in the wake of the Christmas attempt on the plane makes Al Haig's post-Hinckley act look measured and reasonable.

Her remaining in office is proof positive that this Administration is flat-out lost when it comes to combatting terror.

Please note: I acknowledge all failures of the previous administration and do not care how bad it was because right now it is Uncle Barry's crowd's job to protect me and my family.

[strummer8526]

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about you or your family?

[Elvado]

Jan 1, 2010 17:21:29 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about you or your family?

Great rejoinder. As I am sure you find me quite "common", the Preamble mentions providing for the common defense.

If this is all you have, I consider my point made.

[EasyEd]

Krauthammer's take:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101744.html

[strummer8526]

Jan 1, 2010 18:35:56 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Jan 1, 2010 17:21:29 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about you or your family?

Great rejoinder. As I am sure you find me quite "common", the Preamble mentions providing for the common defense.

If this is all you have, I consider my point made.

Look, I agree that this administration has not handled this situation well, and I'm troubled by certain trends in terms of dealing with terrorism. For starters, I'm ok with giving terrorists civilian trials under very specific circumstances—it remains to be seen how the trial actually goes, so I'm reserving judgment. But I don't think terrorists should be treated like average run-of-the-mill criminals. There seem to be some fundamental flaws with how this group is going to deal with these issues.

I argue with you because, rather than post a link to a story and a reasoned opinion on the issue, you constantly revert back to silly nicknames, ad hominem attacks, and the like.

[The Stig]

Napolitano's comments were 100% accurate. The system she was actually talking about worked perfectly. She wasn't talking about the visa system or the security checkpoint system or the terror database system. She was talking about the post-attack response system to ensure that other airborne flights weren't in imminent danger. As she said, that system (which, to give credit where it's due, was almost certainly a Bush Administration creation) worked flawlessly and accurately determined that no other flights were in imminent danger.

For the record, Napolitano's full quote: "Once this incident occurred, everything went according to clockwork, not only sharing throughout the air industry, but also sharing with state and local law enforcement. Products were going out on Christmas Day, they went out yesterday, and also to the industry to make sure that the traveling public remains safe. I would leave you with that message. The traveling public is safe. We have instituted some additional screening and security measures, in light of this incident, but, again, everyone reacted as they should. The system, once the incident occurred, the system worked."

[theexorcist]

Jan 1, 2010 22:41:32 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Napolitano's comments were 100% accurate. The system she was actually talking about worked perfectly. She wasn't talking about the visa system or the security checkpoint system or the terror database system. She was talking about the post-attack response system to ensure that other airborne flights weren't in imminent danger. As she said, that system (which, to give credit where it's due, was almost certainly a Bush Administration creation) worked flawlessly and accurately determined that no other flights were in imminent danger.

For the record, Napolitano's full quote: "Once this incident occurred, everything went according to clockwork, not only sharing throughout the air industry, but also sharing with state and local law enforcement. Products were going out on Christmas Day, they went out yesterday, and also to the industry to make sure that the traveling public remains safe. I would leave you with that message. The traveling public is safe. We have instituted some additional screening and security measures, in light of this incident, but, again, everyone reacted as they should. The system, once the incident occurred, the system worked."

I call BS.

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/12/27/napolitano_on_failed_terror_attempt_the_system_worked.html

Watch the video. The initial question was an al Qaeda ties. She says, essentially, "that's not DHS' job" when the AQ question gets brought up, then says that "the system worked". She mentions the passengers and crew (who don't work for DHS) who did their job. I didn't realize that DHS' ops manual now said "we assume that the passengers and crew will willingly sacrifice their lives in a terrorist event".

What's strange is that I don't think that the system was really tested. There was not a massive grounding of planes. While everyone was notified, eh - cable news and Twitter could have done that in twenty minutes to let everyone know where things stood. There's not a lot of "the system" post-attack occurring.

The comments are infuriating. She's trying to save the reputation of DHS by saying that their post-alert system worked. Well, the only problem is that all the stuff before the attempt - where people, including those passengers who did what DHS couldn't, get screened and treated like cattle - did what DHS couldn't do.

And DHS is culpable twice over. TSA didn't detect the bomb and DHS' intelligence bureau didn't flag this guy. Make that thrice - DHS didn't put an air marshal on the flight. All three of these are items where DHS can get questioned on its decisions. All three of which, incidentally, can be defended as "we have limited resources" or other items on which Napolitano or higher-ups at DHS made judgement calls (on the air marshal program, they could have mentioned a lack of air marshals and a lower flight priority on flights into Detroit, even if they were international).

BUT NO. Napolitano goes "Laa dee dah, everything's fine here, move along".

I'M IRATE. I live in the approach path of DCA. I like traveling - I take about 10-15 flights a year. I submit to baggage screening and travel lines based on the assumption that this is going to make me safer.

AND IT'S NOT. One of the massive findings from the 9/11 Commission Report was the lack of intelligence sharing. One of what appears to be the major findings here was the lack of intelligence sharing.

Napolitano could have taken the "we're investigating how this happened, can't comment until then". BUT NO. She had to go on the offensive, DESPITE HER AGENCY SCREWING UP.

Let's say you're the CEO of Chase. Let's say a hacker broke into Chase's website and compromised everyone's account information and stole millions of dollars. Let's say that the director of Chase's information security department says that the system worked - as soon as Chase found out about the theft, they notified local, state and federal law enforcement and took down the site so no more attacks could be performed. Let's say that the director of security then said "the system worked".

She deserves to be fired.

[jerseyhoya34]

Good points, all.

I may be missing something in the security steps, but is DHS/TSA now responsible for administering the security/metal detector checks for flights bound for the US from Europe? I had flown from Europe to the US 4-5 times last spring and recall that the security agents appeared to be of the relevant European governments. That being asked, if we were not conducting and could not conduct security checks at - say Schiphol - for metal detector work/pat downs upon entering a terminal should DHS have put in security checks at the gate at Schiphol airport? That's where the issue really comes down IMO and why some of the understandable hand-wringing and criticism here seems to be missing the point because it seems like we were not responsible for administering the airport security that obviously allowed for the lapse.

I think too little attention is being paid to the issues with his father's disclosure to the Embassy or Consulate in Nigeria. That is not a DHS issue unless the information is passed along. It sounds like it got buried in an inbox memo or lost in the web even if the attacker was appropriately classified on the list system. I question the degree to which this thing was probed then as it should have been and not chalked up to being untrustworthy or the stuff of a Nigerian banker.

There remains an issue of information-sharing that is troubling but not all that surprising given American history and the nature of bureaucracies. Even with consolidation of many relevant entities under DHS, an agency here or there will always know something that DHS doesn't (and vice-versa), and we'll be damned in the one case where the info isn't shared as opposed to the hundreds or thousands of cases where it isn't. I don't justify this at all - only putting the status quo out there.

This incident should also shine the light on lawmakers who vote against screening devices, hold up nominations to security agencies, and attack funding for air marshals (described by one lawmaker as a "waste of money"). I have no doubt this same attack could have been carried out on a domestic flight since our metal detectors act like others and detect metal rather than fluid, and patdowns occur selectively, if at all. Still, dump some funding in the other devices that have been discussed in recent days, and you can at least make some headway and perhaps prevent an attack.

I am not surprised that an attack could be carried out and was but for the grace of God and a group of aware passengers. We're fighting a constant, uphill battle to gather and assimilate the intelligence we can gather, when the attackers know when and where they want to strike. Think of the nutjob who tackled the Pope. She knew she would attack, and despite what appeared to be considerable security, she caught them by surprise as terrorists seek to do and managed to find a way to accomplish her heinous objective.

In this light, I overheard a conversation with an airline/military security specialist recently, and he went on about how there are simply things that are shocking that Al Qaeda has not tried since 9/11. Shoulder rocket attacks are one of them. If we were serious about preventing those (as we should be), our airlines would be forced to purchase lasers or other anti-rocket devices at a steep cost or the US government would have to buy them for the airlines. This is to say that TSA/DHS etc. are not and never were intended in my mind to be all-encompassing security agencies. They are much too reactive and superficial (duct tape and rainbow alerts come to mind). The government has papered over our exposure but has done so in a way that, for the most part, instills calm. That being said, I'd much rather that we went all in with an honest/transparent policy and used an El Al model.

On edit: An air marshal on that flight does not do much for you that the passengers did not do. It is not as though the attacker knows who the air marshal is and decides not to attack, and it isn't as though the air marshal, seated wherever he is on the plane, prevents the attacker from lighting the match or using the syringe. Maybe there is some benefit after the attack is attempted in terms of restraining the attacker.

[The Stig]

Jan 1, 2010 23:26:56 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Jan 1, 2010 22:41:32 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Napolitano's comments were 100% accurate. The system she was actually talking about worked perfectly. She wasn't talking about the visa system or the security checkpoint system or the terror database system. She was talking about the post-attack response system to ensure that other airborne flights weren't in imminent danger. As she said, that system (which, to give credit where it's due, was almost certainly a Bush Administration creation) worked flawlessly and accurately determined that no other flights were in imminent danger.

For the record, Napolitano's full quote: "Once this incident occurred, everything went according to clockwork, not only sharing throughout the air industry, but also sharing with state and local law enforcement. Products were going out on Christmas Day, they went out yesterday, and also to the industry to make sure that the traveling public remains safe. I would leave you with that message. The traveling public is safe. We have instituted some additional screening and security measures, in light of this incident, but, again, everyone reacted as they should. The system, once the incident occurred, the system worked."

I call BS.

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/12/27/napolitano_on_failed_terror_attempt_the_system_worked.html

Watch the video. The initial question was an al Qaeda ties. She says, essentially, "that's not DHS' job" when the AQ question gets brought up, then says that "the system worked". She mentions the passengers and crew (who don't work for DHS) who did their job. I didn't realize that DHS' ops manual now said "we assume that the passengers and crew will willingly sacrifice their lives in a terrorist event".

What's strange is that I don't think that the system was really tested. There was not a massive grounding of planes. While everyone was notified, eh - cable news and Twitter could have done that in twenty minutes to let everyone know where things stood. There's not a lot of "the system" post-attack occurring.

The comments are infuriating. She's trying to save the reputation of DHS by saying that their post-alert system worked. Well, the only problem is that all the stuff before the attempt - where people, including those passengers who did what DHS couldn't, get screened and treated like cattle - did what DHS couldn't do.

And DHS is culpable twice over. TSA didn't detect the bomb and DHS' intelligence bureau didn't flag this guy. Make that thrice - DHS didn't put an air marshal on the flight. All three of these are items where DHS can get questioned on its decisions. All three of which, incidentally, can be defended as "we have limited resources" or other items on which Napolitano or higher-ups at DHS made judgement calls (on the air marshal program, they could have mentioned a lack of air marshals and a lower flight priority on flights into Detroit, even if they were international).

BUT NO. Napolitano goes "Laa dee dah, everything's fine here, move along".

I'M IRATE. I live in the approach path of DCA. I like traveling - I take about 10-15 flights a year. I submit to baggage screening and travel lines based on the assumption that this is going to make me safer.

AND IT'S NOT. One of the massive findings from the 9/11 Commission Report was the lack of intelligence sharing. One of what appears to be the major findings here was the lack of intelligence sharing.

Napolitano could have taken the "we're investigating how this happened, can't comment until then". BUT NO. She had to go on the offensive, DESPITE HER AGENCY SCREWING UP.

Let's say you're the CEO of Chase. Let's say a hacker broke into Chase's website and compromised everyone's account information and stole millions of dollars. Let's say that the director of Chase's information security department says that the system worked - as soon as Chase found out about the theft, they notified local, state and federal law enforcement and took down the site so no more attacks could be performed. Let's say that the director of security then said "the system worked".

She deserves to be fired.

You're acting like I said a lot more than I said.

I was making a very narrow statement - that Napolitano's "the system worked" comment, taken in context, was true. I stand by that - the very specific system that she was talking about worked fine.

As you say, the post-attack system isn't that big of a deal. But Napolitano wasn't the one who made a big deal out of that system. It's only become a big deal because certain people have picked out her "the system worked" comment, taken it out of context, and made big deal out of it.

Now, speaking in a larger sense, did Napolitano and DHS as a whole manage this whole affair perfectly? Obviously not. DHS, DoS, CIA, and other agencies should have taken the appropriate action to keep this guy off the flight. But Elvado was just talking about Napolitano's one comment, so I responded to that one comment.

[GIGAFAN99]

Napolitano will not be fired is my prediction.

She's kind of the only Obama cabinet member not named Clinton who isn't terrible. And she's probably the only one he actually trusts. He has to keep her.

Scratch that, he probably trusts Duncan but really, who cares about him?

[theexorcist]

Stig:

No offense to you intended. I'm frustrated, however, with a variety of people who have taken a lawyer rationale and said that "the system worked" really meant the post-alert system. I don't buy that.

I remain irate at this. However, the anger is directed at Napolitano, who seems focused on playing the "not my jurisdiction" game.

Ambassador:

An Air marshal, whose job it is solely to see if someone's trying to kill people, might have noticed a nonverbal cue before this guy tried to ignite the bomb (flight attendants have other duties). As head of DHS, Napolitano will need to answer this - like you said, however, I think she has a good potential.

With that said, however, relying on passengers gets difficult. There's never a guarantee that you're going to have someone on a flight who wants to be a hero and who has the training to take someone down.

AQ has tried shoulder-launched missile attacks, both at airports in Africa (against El Al, if I remember correctly) and in Iraq. El Al has missile countermeasures - currently, American airlines don't find the vaue in the expense. I've flown El Al, and it was a crappy experience in an older plane with lousy food and a weak entertainment system. Any American airline that put lots of money in safety rather than driving down their cost or serving meals or other things that people see wouldn't do well.

You're right on the status quo for information sharing. The problem is that, the last time it failed, lots of people died, the Pentagon was damaged, and commerce crashed for a week. And the USG thought that it was a big enough problem to create an agency that was responsible for that stuff - well, two, if you include NCTC. This cost a lot of money and time and seems to have done nothing whatsoever - it almost seems like things got worse. The status quo is unacceptable.

The hold on the TSA director is based on his opposition to unions for TSA - Sessions has made his point that he believes it degrades airline safety. Saying that not confirming someone is a threat to safety is a canard. The Post also has something on the TSA nominee having skeletons in his closet and potentially lying to Congress, so maybe the nominee is a bad one.

Even worse, however, is the idea of screening devices. There's no perfect screening device, and the ones that really do work well have big privacy concerns - something that galvanized at least part of the Democratic Party in its opposition to the Patriot Act. Screening devices also don't indicate the presence of a gun, just of something that looks like a gun, so what is really needed is not a technical solution, but well-trained people who know how to use the scanner.

[TBird41]

Jan 2, 2010 1:51:20 GMT -5 GIGAFAN99 said:

Napolitano will not be fired is my prediction.

She's kind of the only Obama cabinet member not named Clinton who isn't terrible. And she's probably the only one he actually trusts. He has to keep her.

Scratch that, he probably trusts Duncan but really, who cares about him?

You underrated the quality of the SecDef. Not sure if
obama trusts him though.

[GIGAFAN99]

Jan 2, 2010 2:05:11 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Jan 2, 2010 1:51:20 GMT -5 GIGAFAN99 said:

Napolitano will not be fired is my prediction.

She's kind of the only Obama cabinet member not named Clinton who isn't terrible. And she's probably the only one he actually trusts. He has to keep her.

Scratch that, he probably trusts Duncan but really, who cares about him?

You underrated the quality of the SecDef. Not sure if
obama trusts him though.

You're right. And I think he trusts him.

Keep forgetting changemeister's best cabinet members either ran against him or were appointed by Bush. It's almost like you have to have experience to do this governing thing. Crazy.

[SSHoya]

Everyone (except for the exorcist) has placed the focuse mostly on the wrong USG component DHS because Napolitano was dispatched to be the face of the Administration on this debacle. The DNI established by the amendments to the National Security Act of 1947 has not yet been mentioned (although the exorcist knows of NCTC). It is headed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair (Ret.) and has direct responsibility under 50 USC Sec. 403-1(g)(1)(C) "Intelligence Information Sharing" to "ensure development of and information technology systems that inlcude multi-level security and intelligence integration capbilities." ODNI is also directly responsible for the National Counterterrorism Center under Sec. 403-1(f)(2) ("The Director of National Intelligence shall oversee the National Counterterrorism Center and may establish such other natiional intelligence centers as the Director determines necessary.") IIRC, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) was the precursor to the NCTC before the amendments to the NSA of 1947 and was supposed to be an interagency organization among the USIC to integrate and analyze threat information. In my view, the responsibility lies here. Adm. Blair has the statutory responsbility to ensure that the information communicated in Nigeria to the USDOS and, apparently CIA, is properly reported, shared, and integrated within the USIC. He is also directly responsible for the proper reporting, sharing, and integration of the information that the NSA reportedly intercepted about a "Nigerian" who may have been involved in planning a terrorist attack. One may differ over whether the addition of another layer of bureaucracy over the 16 components of the USIC was wise. I am in agreement with the exorcist on this one. Regardless, I believe the responsibility lies with Adm. Blair. He has also been having difficulties in working with DCI Leon Panetta. IMHO, if anyone walks the plank on this one it might be Adm. Blair, who 99% of the country do not even know that he even exists must less what his actual responsibilities are. He is not politically connected to the President as Secy Napolitano is and may be the sacrificial lamb to take responsibility on this debacle. And make no mistake, the system did not work. I don't for one second defend as what I see are politically-driven comments (i.e., spinning for PR purposes) of Napolitano nor those of Robert Gibbs.

And Elvado, when you entitle a serious subject like this with an allusion to a "birth certificate" many people will ignore the message because of the messenger. How is that productive if you desire a rationale and serious discussion about the most pressing national security matter facing the United States for the foreseeable future?

And as the son of two retired CIA employees, I hope everyone on this board say a prayer for the 7 CIA officers and their families who gave their lives for our country in Afghanistan. My late father literally asked me most days of my life growing up, "What did you do for your country today?" How would those on this board answer this question?

[Elvado]

Point taken re the thread title. Sorry to offend the delicate sensibilities of the President and his supporters. Hope no one offended the attempted bomber before granting him Miranda rights and allowing him to lawyer up.

This mishandling of the situation is particularly galling in light of the President announcing an Al Quaeda tie. First and foremost, let's make sure the "system works" to protect the rights of enemy combatants. Then, and only then, if it's not too much trouble, we can look out for innocent Americans.

[HoyaNyr320]

Jan 2, 2010 9:00:40 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Point taken re the thread title. Sorry to offend the delicate sensibilities of the President and his supporters. Hope no one offended the attempted bomber before granting him Miranda rights and allowing him to lawyer up.

This mishandling of the situation is particularly galling in light of the President announcing an Al Quaeda tie. First and foremost, let's make sure the "system works" to protect the rights of enemy combatants. Then, and only then, if it's not too much trouble, we can look out for innocent Americans.

I think it is interesting that law enforcement was able to get a huge amount of valuable information from the suspect by simply asking the right questions immediately after taking him into custody. I wonder whether we would have gotten the same amount of accurate information if our government had a policy in place of putting a black hood over his head and sending him to some prison in Eastern Europe before asking any questions and then using "enhanced interrogation techniques". The fact is, torture has been proven unreliable and only emboldens the enemy as a recruiting tool. The existence of Guantanamo Bay also acts as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. It's existence also hemorrhages money and as we have found out, makes prosecution of these terrorists (even by military tribunal) extremely difficult. Of all the things that went wrong within the government in this attempted terrorist attack, having law enforcement take the lead in his detention and interrogation was NOT one of them.

[hoyaalf]

I'm irate about a few things myself.

1. Why do people assume they have a God-given right to fly? Taken in aggregate across the industry from the twenties 'til now, commercial passenger service has not provided a resonanable return on investmen to warrant its continuance. However, it provides a necessary strategic infrastructure. Thats why the federal gov't gives it so many indirect subsidies. Airline tickets should reflect the true cost of doing business including security. Add about a $1000 per ticket. A good deal of the traffic is for frivolous purposes in any case.

2. Bush-Cheyney sold the War on Terror as something as vital as WW2.
Why didn't they behave that way? Where's the sacrifice commensurate with WW2 ?

War tax on gas: $3.50 a gallon.

SSHoya, I'm ready to do that for my country today, and I had an intuition that a Hoya was killed in that blast you referenced, deep in my gut. I started to post that but it seemed too much a downer.

[SSHoya]

hoyaalf:

1. To take point number one another step, there is no Constitutional right for any non-U.S. person to enter this country. We should rethink our entire visa waiver program (that allows foreign nationals of certain countries to receive multiple entry visas w/o interviews). AQ is well aware of this weakness in our visa policy and have sought to exploit it through individuals viewed as "clean", i.e., would trigger no alarms in terms of entrance to the US by virtue of this type of visa. Bush maintained this program in furtherance of maintaining diplomatic courtesies with many countries, as ironic as that may seem now.

2. Bush in his 9/20/01 speech: "I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy." While some on the left made this shorthand for the President merely asking us to "go shopping" I think the Bush Administration did miss a valuable opportunity to have asked for something more from the American public. I think Bush/Cheny fundamentally underestimated the strength of the America people by not doing so at a time when Bush's approval rating was 90%.

[theexorcist]

Jan 2, 2010 12:51:39 GMT -5 hoyaalf said:

I'm irate about a few things myself.

1. Why do people assume they have a God-given right to fly? Taken in aggregate across the industry from the twenties 'til now, commercial passenger service has not provided a resonanable return on investmen to warrant its continuance. However, it provides a necessary strategic infrastructure. Thats why the federal gov't gives it so many indirect subsidies. Airline tickets should reflect the true cost of doing business including security. Add about a $1000 per ticket. A good deal of the traffic is for frivolous purposes in any case.

2. Bush-Cheyney sold the War on Terror as something as vital as WW2.
Why didn't they behave that way? Where's the sacrifice commensurate with WW2 ?

War tax on gas: $3.50 a gallon.

SSHoya, I'm ready to do that for my country today, and I had an intuition that a Hoya was killed in that blast you referenced, deep in my gut. I started to post that but it seemed too much a downer.

Adding $1,000 per ticket is a good way to destroy the US economy. Many states rely on tourism and the airline business as a significant source of income (Boeing's sales have a huge impact on GDP). Flying to different locations also broadens people's minds, even if those purposes are frivolous.

A few people (notably Krauthammer) have proposed a "gas price floor" that would include taxes to raise the price of gas to a certain level no matter what, to reduce consumption. I'm a fan of the idea in theory (though I have no car, so it's easy for me to do so), but I'm concerned that the governments that get the revenue would spend it on magic beans (much like cigarette taxes that were designed as deterrents or for nonsmoking programs have been relied upon to balance budgets).

[SSHoya]

Anyone disagree with the NYTimes on this?

www.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/opinion/02sat1.html?ref=todayspaper