Al-Qaeda:  U.S. Officials Suspect Group Behind Bombings in Saudi Arabia

U.S. officials have said they believe al-Qaeda is responsible for a series of suicide bombings Monday night in Saudi Arabia that killed at least 21 people and injured about 200, CNN.com reported today (see GSN, May 5).

U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday he “wouldn’t be surprised” if al-Qaeda was found to be responsible for the attacks.

“I can’t say for certain it was al-Qaeda yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was," Bush said, adding, “the war on terror goes on” (CNN.com, May 14).

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell made similar allegations after visiting one of the attacked sites. 

“It certainly has all the fingerprints of an al-Qaeda operation,” Powell said.

One U.S. official noted the similarities between Monday’s attack in Saudi Arabia and the 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

“Vehicle bombs.  Near simultaneous coordinated attacks.  Multiple locations.  It certainly has the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda operation,” the official said (Warren Strobel, Philadelphia Inquirer, May 14).

An e-mail sent by an al-Qaeda commander the day before the bombings warning that the group was planning to conduct attacks in Saudi Arabia has also implicated al-Qaeda, according to the Associated Press.

In an e-mail sent to the London-based Al-Majalla magazine, an al-Qaeda operative who identified himself as Abu Mohammed Ablaj said the group had prepared “martyrdom” squads to conduct “guerrilla war” on Riyadh and the United States.

“Beside targeting the heart of America, among the strategic priorities now is to target and execute operations in the Gulf countries and allies of the United States, particularly Egypt and Jordan,” Ablaj wrote in the e-mail.  “The list of assassinations, the raid teams and the martyr operation squads are ready.  The caches of weapons, ammunition, explosives and bombs are plentiful, and the authorities cannot uncover them.  We will start by creating tensions to confuse the security services, then carry out major operations and lethal strikes,” he wrote.

A U.S. counterterrorism official said the e-mail is believed to be credible and implicates al-Qaeda as being behind the attacks (Sarah El Deeb, Associated Press/Boston Globe, May 14).

Some Saudi officials, as well as opponents of the Saudi government, have said that terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden might have personally directed the attacks.

The attacks were the result of a decision by bin Laden to target foreigners and members of the Saudi royal family in his former homeland, where support for him is high, according to Islamist opponents of the government.

“There is credible discussion in jihadi circles that this is the beginning of a new campaign, and that Osama bin Laden has given the go-ahead for a campaign in Saudi Arabia,” said Saad al-Fagui, a British-based critic of the Saudi government (Mark Huband, Financial Times, May 14).

The United States has sent an FBI team to Riyadh to aid in the investigation into the attacks, according to CNN.com.  In addition, the U.S. State Department yesterday ordered that all nonessential U.S. personnel and their family members leave Saudi Arabia. 

“We’re very concerned about additional attacks,” a U.S. official said (CNN.com).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Anti-Terrorism Response Is Lacking, Report Says

U.S. anti-terrorism measures are inadequate and lack resources, according to a recent report by the Justice Department and the Police Executive Research Forum, USA Today reported today (see GSN, May 1).

Specifically, the report said U.S. terrorism task forces are understaffed and don’t have the capability to investigate possible terrorists.  Local and state law enforcement officials used the report to reiterate their concerns that federal officials are working on their own.

“We are more than a year past the terrorist attacks and I’m not alone when I say local law enforcement executives do not feel like they are in the game,” said Massachusetts Public Safety Secretary Edward Flynn, who co-authored the report.  Flynn said local law enforcement “often presumes that federal agencies are withholding detailed, relevant and important information.  We need to work on issues of mutual trust so that we can share what information there is while retaining necessary security and integrity.”

The FBI maintains 66 terrorism task forces to investigate terrorist threats around the country.  The task forces are directed by FBI field office chiefs but are staffed by local, state and federal law enforcement officials.  The report says that these task forces are “inadequate” to address terrorist threats to the United States.

According to the report, the lack of involvement from local police officers stems from their departments’ fears about a lack of compensation.

“The task forces are the best thing we have going,” said Chris Smecker, the highest-ranking FBI agent in North Carolina.  “There is a need for more participation at the local level.  But there should be a way for police departments to be compensated for the officers who are assigned” to the task force units, Smecker added (Kevin Johnson, USA Today, May 14).

Back to top

British Response:  United Kingdom Works to Improve Port Security

The United Kingdom has begun a program to improve security at its ports to prevent terrorists from smuggling radioactive materials into the country, the Press Association reported today (see GSN, Feb. 4).

British Customs officials have begun installing detection equipment at ports to prevent radioactive material smuggling, the PA reported.  The equipment had been previously tested in a three-month trial conducted at the British ports of Dover, Felixstowe and Portsmouth.  A Customs spokesman said that more than $160 million has been allocated to improve port security over the next three years (Press Association/London Guardian, May 14).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Senator Introduces Chemical, Nuclear Plant Security Bills

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — In an effort to improve security at U.S. nuclear power and chemical plants, U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) has introduced two alternatives to Democratic proposals (see GSN, April 8).

Last week, Inhofe introduced the Chemical Facilities Security Act of 2003.  Under the bill, the Homeland Security Department would have one year after the enactment of the bill to create regulations requiring chemical plant operators to conduct vulnerability assessments and to prepare site security plans.

To aid in the preparation of vulnerability assessments and security plans, the department would also provide chemical plant operators with relevant terrorist threat information.  Chemical plant operators would be able to petition Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to endorse security standards developed by the chemical industry if they are “substantially equivalent” to the requirements of the act. 

The bill would also give the Homeland Security Department the authority to review a plant’s vulnerability assessment and security plan, and to order revisions if they are found to be inadequate.  In addition, the department would also be required to conduct routine oversight of chemical plants to ensure compliance with the law, according to an Inhofe press statement.  Chemical plants found to be in violation of the act could face civil penalties of up to $50,000 per day for each day a violation occurs, and administrative penalties of up to $250,000.  In addition, Ridge could also petition for injunctive relief, which could result in the temporary closing of a facility, according to the Inhofe statement.

“Let me be very clear,” Inhofe said in his statement.  “No one gets a free pass under this bill, no one is exempt.  Chemical facilities must abide by the legislation's security requirements and any rules, procedures or standards developed by the Department of Homeland Security,” he said.

The American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry trade organization, praised Inhofe’s chemical plant security bill.

“The legislation introduced today by Senator James Inhofe … is an important step to secure America’s chemical facilities — part of our nation’s critical infrastructure — against the threat of terrorist attack,” the group said in a statement.

Nuclear Act Introduced

Complementing the chemical plant measure, Inhofe yesterday introduced the Nuclear Infrastructure Security Act of 2003, which seeks to improve security at nuclear power plants.  The bill would require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in coordination with Ridge, to examine the security, preparedness and response plans for nuclear facilities.  Such an examination would include an assessment of federal, state, local or plant operator responsibility to defend against various threats, as well as a review of hiring and training standards for nuclear plant security forces.

After such a commission review, it would have three months to revise the design basis threat — the type of terrorist attack a nuclear facility must be able to defend against.  Nuclear facilities would then have a one-year deadline to revise their security plans based on the new design basis threat and submit them to the commission for review.  The bill sets a 21-month deadline for the NRC to review the nuclear plants’ emergency response plans.

In addition to facility security, Inhofe’s bill also seeks to improve employee security.  The bill calls for the commission to review employee access and training standards and to establish new security procedures — in addition to the current criminal background checks and fingerprinting — to ensure that no one who could pose a threat to national security is employed at nuclear facilities.  In addition, nuclear facilities would be required to fingerprint anyone who has unescorted access to the facility or to a radioactive material storage site.

The bill also calls for the creation of a federal program to improve the training of National Guard units and state and local law enforcement agencies to respond to terrorist threats against nuclear facilities.  In addition, the bill would also require the NRC to assign regional federal security coordinators who would be responsible for threat-information sharing and for ensuring that nuclear facilities in their region maintain the appropriate level of security for the known threat level.

Inhofe’s bills are alternatives to legislation offered by several Democratic senators in the past year to improve chemical and nuclear plant security (see GSN, Jan. 23).  Several Democratic senators last year sponsored the Nuclear Security Act, which sought to improve security at U.S. nuclear facilities.  While the Senate environment committee unanimously supported the bill last year, the full Senate failed to act before the congressional session ended.

In March, during debate on the Price-Anderson Act — a nuclear industry liability and indemnification bill — Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) offered the Nuclear Security Act as an amendment.  In a similar gesture, Inhofe offered his own amendment with language similar to that of the Nuclear Security Act, according to a Senate aide familiar with the issue.

Reid agreed to support the amendment in exchange for a markup hearing to be held on Inhofe’s language, the aide said, noting that Inhofe’s introduction of his nuclear plant security bill was mainly a procedural gesture to fulfill the markup pledge.  Once Inhofe’s bill moves out of committee, there will be an attempt to replace his amendment to the Price-Anderson Act with final language of the Nuclear Security Act, the aide told Global Security Newswire today.

A Reid spokeswoman said today that the senator was “pleased” that Inhofe’s bill adopted most of the language in the Nuclear Security Act.

Senator Jon Corzine (D-N.J) also saw the Senate environment committee unanimously approve his chemical plant security bill last year, but the full Senate again failed to act before the congressional session ended (see GSN, Jan. 16). 

After Inhofe released a draft of his chemical plant security bill late last month, Corzine responded with criticism.

“Unfortunately, the bill does very little to secure Americans who work and live around these facilities,” Corzine said in a press statement.  “The bill may provide an illusion of security, but it’s little more than a fig leaf that would leave chemical plants highly vulnerable to terrorism,” he said.

Corzine particularly criticized the provision in Inhofe’s bill allowing chemical plant operators to petition Ridge to endorse industry-created standards.

“The government should set basic standards and hold industry accountable for meeting them,” Corzine said.  “We shouldn’t just pass the buck to industry to set public safety standards,” he added.

Corzine reintroduced his bill in January, but the committee does not plan to schedule hearings on it, committee majority spokesman Mike Catanzaro said today.  “As far as the committee is concerned,” it will now work to move both of Inhofe’s bills to the Senate floor, he said.  A markup hearing on both bills has been scheduled for Thursday.

Back to top

U.S. Response:  WMD Attack Training Exercise Begins

A massive U.S. homeland security training exercise designed to simulate WMD attacks conducted by terrorists in Chicago and Seattle is to begin today (see GSN, April 22).

The exercise — which will cost $16 million and be code-named “Top Officials 2” (TOPOFF2) — will begin with the simulated detonation today of a “dirty bomb” in downtown Seattle, resulting in more than 100 casualties, according to the New York Post.  Later this week, people in Chicago will begin reporting to area hospitals complaining of flu-like symptoms, which officials will learn is the result of a simulated pneumonic plague attack, the Post reported.

The five-day, $16 million exercise is expected to involve more than 8,000 U.S., state and local officials, as well as Canadian officials.  The terrorist group behind the simulated attacks, Group for the Liberation of Orangeland and the Destruction of Others, is based on al-Qaeda, according to the Post.  Under the exercise scenario, FBI counterterrorism agents are expected to capture the GLODO agents responsible for the attacks by the end of the week.

“Our objective is to save lives,” Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said (Brian Blomquist, New York Post, May 12).

Officials and homeland security experts have said that recurrent training is one of the best ways to prepare for a future possible terrorist attack.

“Most important, I think, we’re practicing a lot more now,” said Randall Larsen, director of the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security.  “We should never be exchanging business cards on the day of a big event, and we were doing a lot of that on 9/11,” he said (Tom Weir, USA Today, May 11).

Back to top

U.S. Response I:  U.S. Senate Approves Expanded Surveillance Measures

The U.S. Senate yesterday voted 90-4 to approve legislation to expand the government’s ability to use secret surveillance techniques against suspects who are not thought to be members of known terrorist organizations, according to the New York Times (see GSN, April 9).

Under current law, U.S. officials must first establish a link between a suspect and a known terrorist group to obtain a secret warrant, the Times reported.

Yesterday’s vote was a result of a compromise between Senate Republicans, who wanted to make the 2001 Patriot Act permanent, and Senate Democrats who opposed such a measure.  Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch agreed to drop an amendment to the bill that would have repealed the sunset provisions in the Patriot Act, which would have caused the bill’s powers to expire in 2005 in exchange for Democrats abandoning some of their own amendments that Republicans opposed, according to the Times.

Hatch spokeswoman Margarita Tapia said the senator was satisfied with yesterday’s vote.

“Since a compromise was worked out, we decided not to offer” the amendment repealing the act's time restrictions, Tapia said.  “But that doesn’t change his position.  He continues to be opposed to the sunset provisions of the Patriot Act,” she said.

Civil liberties advocates said they were pleased that Hatch’s proposed amendment had been defeated.

“This is a major victory,” said Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.  “Hatch wanted to intimidate the Democrats into not offering their amendments, and that ploy didn’t work because there is widespread concern that the government has already gone too far with the Patriot Act.  His salvo may have backfired,” Edgar said.

The bill will now go to the House of Representatives, the Times reported.  “We’ll wait to take a look at the Senate bill and see what we’re going to do,” a senior House Republican aide said (Eric Lichtblau, New York Times, May 9).

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Pentagon to Unveil New Anti-WMD Force Protection Project

The U.S. Defense Department is expected to unveil Oct. 1 a new force and installation security project designed to defend against terrorist threats, including WMD threats, according to a department release yesterday.

The $1 billion project, named “Guardian,” will help improve security at 200 installations in the United States and abroad over the next five years, said Army Brig. Gen. Stephen Reeves, the Pentagon’s program executive officer for chemical and biological defense.

When implemented, Guardian will provide military sites and their populations with improved protection against “chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats,” Reeves said.

The Joint Staff is currently developing a list of installations to take part in the project, Reeves said.  Approximately 185 installations in the United States and 15 overseas are expected to be involved, he said, adding that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz will make the final selections.

In the end, “we’ll provide the same levels of protection — and certainly have the same standards — for all of our installations around the world,” Reeves said (U.S. Defense Department release, May 8).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP