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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: michael97123 who wrote (5981)8/26/2003 9:40:08 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 794349
 
Security Failure
We should be profiling.

By Rachel Ehrenfeld - National Review

Al Qaeda's new threats to conduct a series of homicide hijackings should have encouraged the Department of Homeland Security to establish procedures that would provide the highest degree of security possible to the flying public in a cost-effective manner. Instead, during NBC's Meet the Press, on August 3, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge remarked merely that airline passengers are much more secure today than they were before September 11, 2001. However, he conceded, "it will be several years until we get the kind of robust system that we need" to protect air travelers.

Almost two years and approximately $2.5 billion later, America's airports are practically as vulnerable as they were on September 11. Real changes have not occurred, because the government continues to rely on feel-good methods while ignoring the reality: Profiling passengers works. Political correctness is being allowed to rule, even as passengers remain at risk. We are all familiar with the images of elderly ladies and invalids being "randomly" screened at every airport. Moreover, while passenger bags are screened, cargo is not. Pilots and flight attendants are closely scrutinized, yet at many locations the mechanics, office staff, caterers, and cleaners are not required to pass any security checks. I wasn't surprised when a worried airline pilot told me: "Many of us operate within a mental framework of [the] probability, instead of possibility, of a terror attack."

It takes an expert like Isaac Yeffet, the former El Al airline-security chief, to highlight the depth of U.S. airport-security problems. Recently, while traveling in the U.S., Yeffet was randomly chosen for special screening. After the security agent had swept his body with a hand-held metal-detecting wand and declared him "clean," Yeffet pulled a cell phone from his pocket ? to the agent's amazement. A second screening also detected nothing. At this point, Yeffet suggested that, if the screener were to turn the device on, he might be able to detect suspicious objects. Needless to say, the agent was unsettled, but Yeffet was even more upset. "How many similar incidents happen every day in our airports?" he asks.

The U.S. leads the world when it comes to investigating accidents and mishaps, but it's performing rather poorly in trying to prevent terrorist attacks. It needs to adopt a proactive security system that would save citizens' lives as well as protecting infrastructure.

The new Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II), which the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has announced it will start using, will be working on the basis of insufficient background information. CAPPS II defers to a mistaken notion of political correctness ? for instance, it refrains from requesting the passengers' place of birth, for fear of charges of "profiling." Airlines are not allowed to ask for pertinent details, and their staffs have not been instructed to inquire about a passenger's personal behavior or background. This may be politically correct, but it's difficult to make a convincing case that security agents should not be paying special attention to passengers born in countries such as Syria, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia, and the Philippines ? all countries that have supported, or continue to support, terrorist training. Moreover, CAPPS II will not have access to the law-enforcement data that would reveal a criminal record. Though they did not have criminal backgrounds, four of the 9/11 al Qaeda homicide hijackers had been on the FBI's list of suspected terrorists before they entered the country. Had airlines been given these suspects' names, and instructed their chiefs of security to arrest them, we might have prevented their deadly attacks.

The FBI should be sharing such information with the heads of security at all airlines operating in the U.S. Terrorist organizations will often pay criminals to do their work, and it is not unusual for terrorists to engage in criminal activities such as drugs and arms trafficking. Consequently, the FBI may already have criminal records on them.

CAPPS II should not only be collecting information from the government, but should also track passengers' booking behavior. Ticket-counter employees should be instructed to note any diversion from normal patterns of booking a flight. Also, sudden and unusual changes in reservations should be flagged. The effectiveness of sophisticated screening devices hinges not only on the information they are fed, but also on the expertise and training of those operating them. Of the 1.5 billion pieces of baggage carried by U.S. airlines each year, at least 35 percent trigger a false alarm during screening ? and the quality of follow-up checks depends entirely on the screeners. If 30,000 of the 55,000 hired recently have not even had a background check, and 50 security agents at New York's JFK airport managed to pass background checks that failed to reveal their criminal records, how reliable is the service we're getting from the TSA?

El Al Israel Airlines is thought to have the best security in the air-carrier industry, developed over four decades of dealing with a constant, growing, and changing threat. Rather than adopting the methods El Al has been perfecting for years, the U.S. is trying to reinvent the wheel, endangering the lives of millions of passengers in the process. The secret of El Al's success is not the technology it uses; rather, it's due mainly to the quality of security agents it employs and the methods they use. Each employee is carefully screened, thoroughly trained, tested continuously, and paid well. Ask Yeffet, who serves as a consultant to major American airlines, and he'll tell you it's the human factor that makes the difference. El Al screeners have been specifically trained to profile passengers; that same system should be adopted in the U.S.

In addition, the U.S. can also introduce new methods of in-flight passenger identification, like the system recently implemented in some Indian cities. Upon check-in, each passenger receives a boarding card containing a digital photo taken of him at the counter. Flight attendants are given a copy of each passenger's boarding card, to ensure that travelers fly only to their scheduled destination.

To improve the screening of security personnel, we should adopt the Israeli method ? and add, for example, tests to ensure that all employees are able to concentrate for long periods of time. This should be followed by constant updating and testing of both the overall security system and its personnel. With al Qaeda making new threats to our airlines and passengers, now is the time for the Homeland Security Department to discard political correctness and simply do the right thing: Adopt the best existing profiling methods out there, before another disaster occurs.

? Rachel Ehrenfeld is director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy and the author of Narco-terrorism: Evil Money, and the forthcoming book Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How To Stop It (September 2003). A version of this article appeared in Aviation Week and is reprinted with permission.



To: michael97123 who wrote (5981)8/26/2003 10:44:01 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 794349
 
ACTOR'S PROMISE: Candidate says he'd govern as an independent
Carla Marinucci, John Wildermuth, Chronicle Political Writers
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

URL: sfgate.com

GOP gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger told a conservative talk radio host Monday that he would be "going to Sacramento as an independent, " a statement certain to enrage Republican loyalists who have been reluctant to endorse a moderate.

Schwarzenegger, a registered Republican, made the comment to host Hugh Hewitt in one of two back-to-back interviews on conservative talk radio shows.

"I want to be a governor that is for the people, for everyone, no matter what your age is, your political (affiliation)," he said.

The actor's campaign staff immediately scrambled to put a different spin on the potentially controversial comments.

"He means he's not beholden to anyone. He didn't mean he won't go up (to Sacramento) as a Republican," said Sean Walsh, a spokesman for the actor. "He'll be independent of special interests. They can't own him."

When Schwarzenegger was asked if he would campaign for Republican President George W. Bush and against Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, he gave half an answer.

As far as Bush goes, "I am all the way with him and always will be supportive of him," the actor said, but he wouldn't talk about Boxer's campaign.

The two 15-minute interviews marked Schwarzenegger's first one-on-one radio appearances since he declared his candidacy Aug. 6.

While he delivered some familiar lines about helping California's economy and jobs, he also ventured into dangerous political territory.

Schwarzenegger took a shot at Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante for the first time, telling San Diego radio host Roger Hedgecock that the leading Democrat in the recall "is (Gov.) Gray Davis with a receding hairline and a mustache. It's the same person. Same philosophy."

The actor said Davis must be recalled because he has devastated the state economy.

"Gov. (Pete) Wilson has handed over this state in a fantastic economic situation . . . we had a multibillion surplus," he said. "We are now having a $38 billion deficit."

ANOTHER VIEW OF BUDGET

The governor's office responded that the actor painted a far-too-rosy picture of the state's finances at the end of Wilson's terms in office.

"They basically spent everything they had, except for a $1 billion in reserve. There was no multibillion surplus," said Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Davis. "The $38 billion deficit is gone. We have $8 billion in 2004, and we're working to narrow that down."

With 42 days until the Oct. 7 election, Schwarzenegger's telephone visits to the Southern California talk radio shows were aimed at the same conservative voters courted by his former GOP rival, Bill Simon.

Although Simon pulled out of the governor's race Saturday, he continued to make his voice heard Monday by releasing a detailed budget that could put pressure on Schwarzenegger and GOP candidates state Sen. Tom McClintock and businessman Peter Ueberroth to do the same.

CONTINUING ROLE IN THE RACE

Simon's plan would dump the recent increase in the vehicle registration and proposes specific ways to close the $8 billion deficit the state is expected to face next year.

Simon made it clear he wants to hold other Republicans' feet to the budget fire.

"Though I am no longer a candidate, I want the people of California and the remaining candidates to know that the structural deficit can be erased without a single dollar of higher taxes," he said.

Simon's plan unabashedly appeals to the small government, anti-tax, conservative voters his campaign tried to cultivate.

With Simon's proposed cuts now on the table, Schwarzenegger, McClintock and Ueberroth could be forced to either support the proposals or explain to those same conservative voters why they won't.

"We want solutions, but nobody is pushing the campaigns to develop solutions," said Wayne Johnson, Simon's top political strategist. "Hey, someone has to have an idea in this campaign, even if it's a former candidate."

SIMON'S PLAN FOR CUTS

Under Simon's plan, the state would sell $800,000 worth of surplus land and buildings and save $3 billion by rooting out fraud in government programs, $4. 6 billion by forcing every state department to cut costs by 6.5 percent and $4. 9 million by slashing 19 government programs, many of them serving the poor and the elderly.

Specific cuts include eliminating cost-of-living increases for many people receiving state benefits, cutting grants to the disabled, slashing scholarship aid at state colleges and universities, requiring co-payments for Medi-Cal and AIDS Drug Assistance Plan recipients and eliminating all optional Medi-Cal services, such as artificial limbs, diabetes testing supplies, wheelchairs and oxygen tanks.

"There's not a lot of choice in what you can legally cut," Johnson said. "California would still be around the national average" in payments to the poor, elderly and disabled.

"Would we like to be above the national average? Yes, but we can't afford that right now."

Simon's withdrawal Saturday from the campaign probably helps McClintock the most. McClintock and his backers believe the end of Simon's effort leaves the veteran legislator as the lone conservative alternative to moderates like Schwarzenegger and Ueberroth.

"The departure of Bill Simon leaves . . . McClintock standing alone as the consistent, experienced small-government advocate in the race," said the conservative California Republican Liberty Caucus in a statement released Monday.

McClintock will begin airing television ads this week and vows that he's in the governor's race to stay.

With Simon gone from the race, it would be good for GOP chances in October if McClintock and Ueberroth followed him, Schwarzenegger said.

"Mathematically speaking, it will be much better if they drop out," the actor said, although he admitted that is something they will have to decide for themselves.

Still, he added, "it will definitely be better for the party . . .. (and) it will give me a better chance to win."



To: michael97123 who wrote (5981)8/26/2003 11:26:48 AM
From: unclewest  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 794349
 
a clear defeat of the terrorists would be a logical next step.

It won't be easy but it worked against the Baader Meinhof terrorists.

Many (including me) see that as the only solution to terrorism. A look at AQ, Hamas and Hezbollah tactics and negotiating techniques ought to make that clear to all.