|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
U.S. Response: Democrats Fault Bush’s Homeland Security PlanBy Bryan Bender In separate speeches here, Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) and Representative David Obey (D-Wis.) criticized the White House for what they consider a serious lack of attention to the pressing needs of homeland security. They reserved some of their strongest criticism for the new Homeland Security Department, an amalgam of 22 agencies set to open its doors Jan. 24, that the two said was just another government reorganization that will contribute little to enhancing security. The remarks by Edwards, an Intelligence Committee member, and Obey, ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee, mark the start of what analysts predict will be considerable debate on how to defend the United States from terrorists with chemical, biological and nuclear ambitions. The lawmakers also advocated a variety of other steps to improve national preparedness for a terrorist attack, including improving security measures at nuclear and chemical facilities across the country, in part by federalizing security forces; establishing a homeland intelligence agency; beefing up the National Guard; strengthening border and port security; modernizing public emergency warning systems; and expanding efforts to secure weapons of mass destruction and related materials at their source. “Instead of engaging in an open-minded analysis and discussion about what resources our front-line defenders need to perform their tasks, we have instead seen our attention diverted to a tedious debate over the structure of our bureaucracy,” Obey said at the National Press Club. He stressed that of the 133 agencies that had previously had some responsibility for homeland security, the Homeland Security Department reorganization included all or part of only 22 of them. The CIA and FBI are not included. “At best, the new agency title is a misnomer, and at worst, it could actually hamper our homeland protection efforts,” Obey said. Edwards, who is considering a run for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, similarly attacked the new department as more of a political achievement than a substantial achievement for U.S. security. “A new agency and new office space won’t help us infiltrate terrorist organizations right now in our country,” he said at the Brookings Institution. “It won’t stop terrorists or their weapons from getting through the holes in our borders or our ports. It won’t provide equipment and training for police to protect bridges and tunnels, or cause companies to protect vulnerable chemical plants. It won’t help police officers, firemen, and EMTs [emergency medical technicians] on the front lines to coordinate their response in the event of an attack.” According to Obey, “the White House political office diverted the country’s attention from the real homeland security issue, which is ‘What are we doing to protect the homeland, what resources are we providing?’ and instead focused on a discussion about the reorganization of the boxes.” First Responders Left Wanting Both pointed to a lack of federal support for state and local first responders in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Local officials have recently become more vocal in their criticism of Washington’s failure to put its money where its mouth is (see GSN, Nov. 25). Following the attacks, Bush pledged $3.6 billion in federal grants to help local governments train and equip emergency response personnel, but only about $500 million has been allocated so far, Obey said, attributing the administration’s “rigid opposition” to penny-pinching. “The essential question of what do our defenders need and when do they need it, has not been addressed,” he said. “The point is simply that more than a year ago the Congress could have provided the money needed for interoperable communications equipment, protective suits that would allow first responders to enter a chemical or biological attack area, detection devices, and training on how to respond to potential attacks.” “We wouldn’t send our soldiers into battle without the best equipment in the world,” Edwards said. “Yet on the front lines of domestic defense, this administration is cutting aid to cops, states are laying them off, and they’re not getting training and equipment they need.” He added, “If, God forbid, there is another attack, the 170,000 employees of the new department won’t be the ones who come to the rescue. It will be the firefighters and police.” Tom Ridge, nominated by President George W. Bush to head the new department, met with city officials from across the country here yesterday and pledged to do more to ensure the promised grants are distributed. “Governor Ridge and the president say they will push this for us,” said John DeStefano, president of the National league of Cities and mayor of New Haven, Conn. “But it needs to happen. It has been too long,” he said. According to Obey, significantly more money will ultimately be needed. “It is my belief that if we added another $8 billion to $10 billion, we could plug most of the holes in homeland security,” he said. A Homeland Intelligence Agency? One of Edwards’ primary recommendations for improving homeland security is the establishment of a dedicated homeland intelligence agency. He contends that the FBI is not up to the job (see GSN, Dec. 17). “The FBI has tried to reform for years, but the bureaucratic resistance is tremendous,” he said. “Today we don’t have the luxury to turn the FBI into something that it isn’t meant to be. We need to create what we need,” he said. The solution, he said, is a separate homeland intelligence agency, which “should be uncovering terrorist threats before they cause harm.” He said to ensure that information about immediate threats gets to the local level, high-level security clearances should be given to at least one top officer in police departments across the country so they can receive classified information. Edwards first proposed the intelligence agency two months ago, but said that initial administration support for the proposal has since waned. “That’s a huge mistake. Congress and the administration should get to work on the new agency in January.” Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Security Erecting better defense against the threat of weapons of mass destruction is another area where the Bush administration has failed to live up to its rhetoric, according to Edwards. Starting with global stockpiles of these weapons and materials, he called for greater attention to be paid to nonproliferation efforts. “This is a problem much bigger than Iraq,” he said. “We must do more to support the many disarmament programs already in place to dismantle weapons and prevent access to weapons-grade materials in Russia and the former Soviet states; we must commit the maximum resources necessary to support cooperative threat reduction initiatives like Nunn-Lugar,” Edwards said. He also called for a federal security force to guard domestic nuclear plants, such as those now defending U.S. airports. “Given the terrible cost of an attack on a nuclear plant or a theft from one, we need a federal security force for nuclear facilities, carefully trained and regularly tested through emergency simulations,” he said (see GSN, July 30). Meanwhile, Edwards said greater pressure must be exerted on chemical companies to improve physical security at their facilities (see GSN, Nov. 26). “The Bush administration was actually moving towards a common-sense solution that would set minimum standards for safety at chemical plants. But dangerously true to form, after lobbying by the chemical industry, the administration abandoned that approach,” he said. He also sees a greater role for the National Guard, which would play a pivotal role in responding to a catastrophic attack. “We ought to expand the portion of the National Guard focused on domestic defense,” he said, proposing that men and women over the cutoff age of 35 be allowed to join a civilian division dedicated to domestic security. On the biological front, Edwards said much more work needed to be done at the federal level. “We need a national system to ensure sufficient production and rapid distribution of existing treatments and preventive measures. We must do more, especially to develop vaccines and drugs to counter emerging biological threats.”
From December 19, 2002 issue.Threat Assessment: U.N. Panel Warns Al-Qaeda Could Acquire Dirty BombBy Steve Hirsch The panel, established to track the implementation of such anti-terrorism measures as asset freezing, a travel ban and an arms embargo, said in a report released Tuesday that it “remains highly preoccupied by the potential for al-Qaeda to manufacture some kind of ‘dirty bomb.’” The report noted the recent seizure by Tanzanian police of 110 kilograms of suspected raw uranium, although it emphasized that no connection between the seizure and al-Qaeda had been established (see GSN, Nov. 19). Nevertheless, the report said, “the possibility cannot be excluded of these illegal movements of raw uranium reaching al-Qaeda or its associates in East Africa.” In addition, the group said it was aware of press and other reports that al-Qaeda is interested in chemical weapons and said it hopes to devote some time to the issue in the future.
From December 17, 2002 issue.U.S. Response: Gilmore Commission Recommends Independent Intelligence CenterBy Mike Nartker The experts issued the proposal in the fourth annual report of a congressionally mandated panel — the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction — which is informally named the Gilmore Commission for its chairman, former Virginia Governor James Gilmore. The defense think tank RAND provided analysis for the commission. A national counterterrorism center could collect all intelligence information from foreign and domestic sources and disseminate it to U.S. agencies, state officials, local law enforcement and the private sector, the report says. To aid in planning and allocating resources, the center could also assess the terrorist threat within the United States, the report says. Workers from state and local agencies and the private sector should participate in the center “to reflect the anti-terrorism expertise developed in those areas,” the report says. The commission recommended that the center be a distinct entity — separate from the FBI, CIA and the new Homeland Security Department — that would report directly to the president and would be overseen by the House and Senate Select Committees on Intelligence. The center should have no “sanction” authority, such as arrest powers, which would still remain with the FBI and law enforcement agencies, the commission said. “The FBI’s long-standing law enforcement tradition and organizational culture persuade us that, even with the best of intentions, the FBI cannot soon be transformed into an organization dedicated to detecting and preventing terrorist attacks,” the report says (see GSN, Nov. 12). “It is also important to separate the intelligence collection function from the law enforcement function to avoid the impression that the U.S. is establishing a kind of ‘secret police,’” it says. The commission issued additional policy recommendations in five areas: organizing the national effort against terrorism, establishing an appropriate domestic role to the military, improving health and medical capabilities, improving defenses against agricultural terrorism, and better protecting infrastructure. National Effort The new Homeland Security Department should have the authority to direct intelligence collection efforts conducted by other agencies on its behalf, the commission said (see GSN, Nov. 25). The president and Congress should work to define the responsibilities of the department and other U.S. agencies before, during and after a terrorist attack, especially the authority the department has over other U.S. agencies, the report says. The department should also be the lead authority in the event of a terrorist attack involving biological weapons, it adds. Domestic Military Role The role of the U.S. Defense Department in responding to a domestic terrorist attack should be re-examined, the commission said. Any domestic use of the military should be clearly regulated by civilian officials, it added. “Coming through this crisis without diminishing our freedoms or our core values of individual liberty is the entire game,” Gilmore said in a RAND press release. “If we pursue more security at the cost of what makes us Americans, the enemy will have won,” he added. The use of the National Guard for domestic security also needs to be re-examined, the report says. “Rules governing the Guard’s domestic operations limit the ways that the Guard could be used most effectively,” it says. New rules should be created to allow the National Guard to conduct missions under the order of the president while remaining under the authority of state officials, the commission said, adding that states should be allowed to decline such deployments. The Guard should also increase training, the report says, and the defense secretary should designate an exclusive homeland security mission to certain Guard units. Health Capabilities RAND researchers that polled several state and local emergency planning officials on behalf of the commission found that the officials are now better prepared to respond to a terrorist attack than they were before Sept. 11, 2001, according to the RAND release. For example, prior to the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, one-third of polled hospital personnel had been trained in responding to injuries caused by weapons of mass destruction. While this is up from the 5 percent reported in a survey before the attacks, more work needs to be done, the commission said (see GSN, Sept. 9). To improve the U.S. public health system’s response to a terrorist attack, the Health and Human Services Department should continue to provide state and local public health agencies with $1 billion annually for the next five years. States should enact the Model Health Powers Emergency Act, which gives state officials certain powers in the event of a public health emergency, or similar legislation, the report says. States should also work to implement laws that relate to WMD incidents, especially those incidents that require quarantine or emergency large-scale vaccination programs, it adds. Agricultural Terrorism In the report, the commission said the U.S. food supply could be vulnerable to terrorist attacks in ways not yet fully understood (see GSN, Sept. 20). Such vulnerability has been largely ignored in terrorist prevention planning, the commission said, urging the United States to expand laboratory capability for testing food-borne diseases and animal pathogens. The U.S. Agriculture Department should also develop programs to improve veterinary education to focus on terrorist attacks, the report says. U.S. Infrastructure Congress should create a national panel to develop strategies to better protect critical U.S. infrastructure such as power and water systems from a terrorist attack, the commission said (see GSN, Oct. 25). The Homeland Security Department should assign a high priority to screening commercial aircraft cargo and securing dams and the aviation and computer industries, the commission said. The White House should also create a single authority to manage policy development in such areas, the report says. Senator Recommends New Intelligence Organization Meanwhile, Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), an outgoing member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has called for creating an intelligence organization under a national intelligence director, the Washington Post reported today. Under Shelby’s proposal, a separate service managing clandestine intelligence gathering operations would feed information into the new intelligence organization, the Post reported.
From December 16, 2002 issue.International Response: Maritime Organization Passes Security UpgradesThe International Maritime Organization Friday passed several amendments to protect international shipping from attack and prevent ports from being used to move weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Dec. 6). The amendments — signed by 108 countries and scheduled to come into effect in 2004 — include the installation of electronic ship identification devices and security assessments for ports in signatory countries. “Until now, there has not been an internationally agreed framework in place for addressing security,” said Lee Adamson, public information manager for the IMO. Preventive measures can only do so much and the key to shipping safety is good intelligence and cooperation among governments, said Ted Thompson, executive vice president for the International Council of Cruise Lines. “Can you ask a building to try to prevent itself from being hit by an airplane? No, you can’t,” Thompson said (Matthew Garrahan, Financial Times, Dec. 14).
About Newswire | Contact National Journal | Re-Use Guidelines
HOME | CONTACT US | GET INVOLVED | SITE MAP |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Back to top