SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (287416)8/15/2002 11:59:17 PM
From: Mr. Whist  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
Scowcroft warns of Armageddon if U.S. invades Iraq

By Julian Borger in Washington
and Richard Norton-Taylor

Friday August 16, 2002

The Guardian

One of the Republican party's most respected foreign policy gurus yesterday appealed for President Bush to halt his plans to invade Iraq, warning of "an Armageddon in the Middle East".

The outspoken remarks from Brent Scowcroft, who advised a string of Republican presidents, including Mr Bush's father, represented an embarrassment for the administration on a day it was attempting to rally British public support for an eventual war.

The US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, yesterday spelled out what she called the "very powerful moral case" for toppling Saddam Hussein. "We certainly do not have the luxury of doing nothing," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. She said the Iraqi leader was "an evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his own population, his neighbours and, if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, all of us".

But while Ms Rice was making the case for a pre-emptive strike, the rumble of anxiety in the US was growing louder. A string of leading Republicans have expressed unease at the administration's determination to take on President Saddam, but the most damning critique of Mr Bush's plans to date came yesterday from Mr Scowcroft.

The retired general, who also advised Presidents Nixon and Ford, predicted that an attack on Iraq could lead to catastrophe.

"Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East," Mr Scowcroft wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

The Israeli government has vowed it would not stand by in the face of attacks as it did in 1991, when Iraqi Scud missiles landed on Israeli cities. It claims it has Washington's backing for retaliation.

Mr Scowcroft is the elder statesman of the Republican foreign policy establishment, and his views are widely regarded as reflecting those of the first President Bush. The fierceness of his attack on current administration policy illustrates the gulf between the elder Bush and his son, who has surrounded himself with far more radical ideologues on domestic and foreign policy.

In yesterday's article, Mr Scowcroft argued that by alienating much of the Arab world, an assault on Baghdad, would halt much of the cooperation Washington is receiving in its current battle against the al-Qaida organisation.

"An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardise, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken," Mr Scowcroft wrote.

Both the American and British governments are expected to time a public relations effort to rebuff the critics and build public support in the immediate run-up to an invasion.

Senior Whitehall figures say that crucial in that effort will be evidence that President Saddam is building up Iraq's chemical biological warfare capability and planning to develop nuclear weapons.

The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, confirmed yesterday that the Pentagon was considering a change in the status of a navy pilot shot down over Iraq 11 years ago. He is currently classified as "missing in action".

There have been reports that Lieutenant-Commander Michael Speicher was still being held by Iraq.

If he was reclassified as a prisoner of war, it would represent an additional source of conflict between Washington and Baghdad.

guardian.co.uk



To: calgal who wrote (287416)8/16/2002 2:23:09 AM
From: Skywatcher  Respond to of 769670
 
Another great example of the complete INEPTNESS of this administration.....
Air marshal program in disarray, insiders say

By Blake Morrison, USA TODAY

For years, the government touted federal air
marshals as the best of the best — an "elite
corps" of undercover officers trained to stop
hijackings on commercial flights.

But today, after rushing to hire thousands of
new marshals, the program is so beset with
problems that sources say at least 80 marshals
have quit, and other marshals say they are
considering a class-action lawsuit over working
conditions that they fear put travelers at risk.

Documents obtained by USA TODAY and
interviews with more than a dozen current and
former marshals from around the nation
suggest many have grown disillusioned with a
program that one says has become "like security-guard training for the mall."

Hiring standards for marshals added since Sept. 11 have been lowered
dramatically, sources say. No longer must applicants pass a difficult
marksmanship course that used to be the make-or-break test for the program.
In addition, many new hires were given guns and badges and put aboard flights
before extensive background checks were completed.

At some of the agency's more than 20 regional offices, the program has
struggled to provide ammunition for shooting practice, sources say. Despite the
undercover nature of the work, officials have implemented a dress code that
marshals worry identifies them to terrorists. And scheduling has been
haphazard: While some marshals have not flown for weeks at a time, sources
say others are working 12- to 16-hour days and are falling asleep or getting sick
aboard flights.

"This used to be an elite, great group. This used to be the baddest people you
could find — war heroes," says one marshal who joined the program just after
the terrorist attacks. "Now they've turned this into a laughingstock."

At least three incidents involving the conduct of individual marshals are under
investigation by federal authorities.

In one incident last month, a marshal was removed from a flight in Washington
after smelling of alcohol. The head of the air marshal program confirms at least
two cases in which marshals accidentally discharged their weapons, one in a
hotel room in Las Vegas. And sources say one marshal was suspended after he
left his gun in a lavatory aboard a United Airlines flight from Washington to Las
Vegas in December. A passenger discovered the weapon.

By law, the marshals — all with top-secret security clearances — are not
allowed to speak publicly about the program. All requested anonymity and say
they have been told they will be fired or prosecuted for talking to the media.
Based on a presidential order first issued in 1979, they cannot form a union,
either. That's why some of the marshals say they're considering contacting
lawyers. They say they're frustrated that managers ignore their concerns, and
they have little hope that the organization will improve.

Officials with the new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) downplay
the concerns. They say any organization that has grown as quickly as the air
marshal division is bound to have some problems. Although the precise number
of marshals is classified, sources say about 6,000 have been hired since Sept.
11. Before the terrorist attacks, fewer than 50 marshals flew, and only on
international routes.

Tom Quinn, the head of the program, disputes those figures and the number of
marshals who have resigned. "I'm not going to share the number, but it's
significantly less" than 80, he says. The marshals with complaints, Quinn says,
represent "a small number of disgruntled individuals who are total amateurs."

"I'm very pleased with the way the program is going so far. ... We've gotten it
right," he says.

'It's not growing pains'

That's not how some marshals see it. They say they were lured to the program
with promises of promotions and four-day workweeks to make up for the rigors
of travel and days away from their families. Now, they say they've been misled
or lied to, and they worry that new rules put them and travelers in harm's way.

"A lot of people were drawn to this agency because it was a fresh agency,"
says one manager involved in the hiring process. "Now it's spoiled to the point
that it's rotten. They tell us to bear with it, that it's growing pains. It's not
growing pains. It's a disease."

After Sept. 11, the air marshal program became especially appealing to
hundreds of law enforcement officers who guarded the nation's borders,
monuments and federal buildings. Promises of better pay enticed many
applicants, who left jobs with federal law enforcement agencies and local police
departments.

The typical marshal earns about $52,000 a year, officials say — at least $2,000
to $5,000 more than a Border Patrol agent.

"The people I see staying are one of two types: people who were on the border
working in the heat for 60 hours a week, and the other are local cops who are
seeing another $18,000 to $20,000 a year in salary," says the marshal who
joined the program just after Sept. 11.

But even some of those marshals have come to regret their decisions, says the
president of the union representing border patrol agents.

"We've had over 700 people go over there, and we hear from a fair number of
those people — people who have left (the air marshals)," says T.J. Bonner,
head of the National Border Patrol Council. Bonner says the former agents he
talks with say "they made a mistake" by becoming air marshals.

'Real issues with morale'

"The folks were lured over and were told they'd be flying three days a week
with a day of training. Now they're flying five days a week and rarely train,"
Bonner says. "They never in a million years thought they'd be taken advantage
of the way they're being taken advantage of."

Documents obtained by USA TODAY, including e-mails, minutes from
meetings and standard operating procedures for the division, underscore their
complaints. One memo from a June 18 teleconference of regional managers
notes "real issues with morale in the ranks" of those applying for leadership
positions in the program.

Among the concerns:

A marksmanship test that simulates conditions a marshal might face
aboard a jet was eliminated as a means of qualifying for the program,
apparently to get more marshals on more flights quickly, sources say. A
manager and two sources within the TSA say the difficult shooting
course was cut from qualification tests after a high number of applicants
began failing what had once been the program's critical requirement.
Program officials insist the shooting standards for marshals are among
the highest for law enforcement organizations.
Regular training opportunities, such as time on the shooting range, are
often precluded by the expanded flight schedules, marshals say. Even
getting bullets for shooting practice has proven difficult.

Quinn denies any office ever has struggled to provide ammunition to marshals.
"It's never been true," he says. But one memo obtained by USA TODAY
documents the problem last March: "The question keeps coming up and believe
me I feel your pain," says an e-mail to marshals from a manager in one regional
office. "We are getting bullets shortly. ... You can shoot on your own time and
buy bullets with your own money however."

Although they work undercover, marshals at some regional offices have
been ordered to adhere to a dress code that requires them to wear
"conservative male or female business attire" during most of their trips,
documents show. Without special permission, they cannot dress more
casually.

Quinn says working marshals reviewed the dress code before it was issued, and
good marshals "would clearly understand, respect and appreciate" the policy.
He says marshals who provided details of the dress code to USA TODAY "are
putting us all at risk."

Do dress codes threaten cover?

But marshals say making them look and dress alike is what threatens their
cover. "This is really dangerous," says one marshal, who left the Justice
Department for the air marshal program five months ago. "We are so obvious,
the terrorists don't need to bring guns on the planes anymore. They just need to
gang up on us and take our guns."

New hires were given badges and guns and put aboard flights before
extensive background checks necessary for national security clearances
were completed. Quinn says that, in order to hire marshals quickly, the
new hires were given waivers while the more extensive background
checks were underway. "Would I prefer it another way? Certainly," he
says.

So would some marshals. "If someone slips through the cracks, how do you not
know they're not a terrorist?" says one marshal who received a waiver.
"You've already put them on a plane."

Work schedules are disorganized. Schedules reviewed by USA TODAY
show marshals often fly with different partners each day, even though
they were told during training that developing rapport with a partner was
crucial. Many end up flying more than 10 hours a day. "It's ridiculous,"
says the marshal from the Justice Department. "Guys are complaining
about headaches and vertigo and dizziness. We're falling asleep. We're
nodding off."

And though one memo from a manager's teleconference says the agency is
"being judged on how many flights we can cover," more than a dozen marshals
in each of two offices were not scheduled for weeks at a time, sources say.

"In May, for 3 1/2 weeks, they forgot about me," says one marshal. "And not just
me. There had to be 15 guys in the office they forgot about. We sat in the
office watching kung fu movies."

The marshal says many colleagues, cynical about the division's failure to offer
them training, jokingly considered the Bruce Lee movies "our close-quarters
training." When the marshals repeatedly called the scheduling center in Atlantic
City to try to get on flights, schedulers said, "Don't worry about it. You're
getting paid," the marshal recalls.

Charge 'totally erroneous'

Quinn denies the marshal's account. "Totally erroneous," he says. "There was
no office with federal air marshals sitting there watching kung fu movies for a
month."

Other marshals say they routinely work more than 50 hours a week but,
because of a government pay structure for law enforcement officers, never
earn overtime.

Instead, based on a policy called "law enforcement availability pay," they are
paid for 50 hours of straight time each week even if they work more than that.
Quinn says schedulers take into consideration whether marshals have worked
long weeks and try to schedule them for less time in subsequent weeks. But
one manager says if marshals report more hours than 50 hours, time sheets are
changed to reflect only the 50 hours. "I do it on a weekly basis," the manager
says. "I'm having to white 'em out."

When he speaks with marshals at regional offices, Quinn says he stresses two
points: "Professionals embrace change. Amateurs cling to the past and what
somebody may have said to them along the way."

But for some marshals, what they were told when they applied affected their
decision to join the program.

In an Aug. 1 letter of resignation obtained by USA TODAY, one former
marshal wrote of frustrations stemming from "the lies that were fed to myself,
and most of my colleagues." The letter details concerns about scheduling, pay
and promotions. The marshal who wrote it would not comment on the letter, but
he accepted a position outside the division "because I can trust the people and
organization that I will be working for," he wrote.

The new job, he wrote, pays "$11,000 less" than his air marshal salary.

Nice job boyz....about as effective as taking my nailclippers....
CC