Threat Assessment:  Terrorists More Likely to Use Conventional Weapons, Analysts Say

Terrorists are more likely to use conventional weapons, such as car bombs, in future attacks instead of weapons of mass destruction, USA Today reported today (see GSN, March 27).

Future terrorist attacks will probably resemble the series of car bombings that killed 34 people in Saudi Arabia’s capital earlier this week, analysts said (see GSN, May 15).  Conventional weapons, such as guns and explosives, are easy to obtain and use.  In addition, U.S. officials have said it would be almost impossible to prevent terrorists from obtaining such weapons, which could cause almost as many casualties as an attack using nuclear, chemical or biological materials.

“Yes, al-Qaeda has shown an interest in chemical and biological, as well as radiological, devices,” said Amy Smithson, a terrorism analyst at the Henry L. Stimson Center.  “But those are taller technical orders.  In the case of terrorist activity, the statistics are stark:  It’s bombs, bombs, bombs, bombs,” she said.

Some analysts said the Bush administration and the media were exaggerating the threat of terrorists using weapons of mass destruction. 

For example, the U.S. Homeland Security Department’s Web site has a graphic suggesting that the fallout from the detonation of a “dirty bomb” would cover an area about one-quarter the size of Texas.  Scientists who helped prepare the information included on the Web site, however, have said that the contaminated area resulting from such a blast would probably be much smaller.

While agreeing that terrorists are more likely to use conventional explosives in future attacks, U.S. officials said it is almost impossible to predict just what terrorists might do, thereby requiring preparations for even the most unlikely types of possible attacks.

“One thing we know about terrorists is there is no way to predict what will happen,” said Brian Roehrkasse, spokesman for Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge (Laura Parker, USA Today, May 16).

London Warns of Possible Future Attacks in Saudi Arabia

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has warned of a “high threat” of further terrorist attacks against Western interests in Saudi Arabia, possibly involving the use of chemical and biological weapons.  The British Foreign Office has advised all Britons to avoid nonessential travel to the region.

“There remains a high threat of further large or small-scale attacks against Western interests in Saudi Arabia,” the official warning said.  “Terrorist attacks could involve the use of chemical and biological materials,” it added (Times of India, May 16).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Ridge Pleased With TOPOFF 2 Exercise

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said yesterday that he was pleased with the initial lessons learned from the “Top Officials 2” (TOPOFF 2) exercise — a simulation of terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction — held this week in Seattle and Chicago (see GSN, May 12).

“If we are going to make our response system stronger, we first have to identify where strengths, as well as weaknesses, exist,” Ridge said during a visit to Chicago’s 911 center for emergency communications.

A full report on the exercise, sections of which may be classified, is expected by autumn, according to the Associated Press.

“It’s information no one wants on the street and available for the bad guys,” said Homeland Security official Don Jacks.

U.S., state and local officials have said a few glitches were experienced during the exercise.  For example, in Seattle, which suffered a “dirty bomb” explosion at the start of the exercise, Mayor Greg Nickels had trouble obtaining an interpretation of the projected radiation plume, AP reported.

“There was no indication of what it meant to be inside the green or outside the green,” Nickels said.  “It was just a big green blob,” he said.

It took one hour to receive an explanation that 4,000 people lived or worked in the “exclusion zone,” where radiation levels were the highest, according to AP.  Based on that information, Nickels ordered a large section of downtown Seattle residents to “shelter in place.”  Nickels said that if the bomb had been real, he would not have wanted to take so long to issue the order (Elizabeth Gillespie, Associated Press, May 16).

In its part of the exercise, Chicago this week has coped with a mock plague attack, according to Agence France-Presse.  The city’s simulated troubles grew yesterday with a collapsed building and an airport disaster involving the collision of an emergency services helicopter with a passenger airliner.

Ridge yesterday praised Chicago’s efforts during the exercise.  “Our initial assessment is that the city has performed well,” he said (Agence France-Presse, May 16).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Security Department Plans $700 Million Antiterror Package

The U.S. Homeland Security Department yesterday announced $700 million in security aid for cities and transportation facilities across the United States, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 27).

Under the new aid plan security officials will provide funds to 29 cities and 13 ports (Jonathan Salant, Associated Press/San Bernardino Sun, May 15).  The largest recipient will be New York City, slated to receive $200 million, the New York Daily News reported today (Meek/Saul, New York Daily News, May 15).

The department’s plan sends $42 million to Washington, $30 million to Chicago, $24 million to Houston and $19 million to Los Angeles.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has called for a new system of distributing aid that relies less on population and more on threat assessments.

“We must ensure maximum benefit is derived from every security dollar,” Ridge said (Salant, Associated Press/San Bernardino Sun).

“I think that President Bush and Tom Ridge, when it came to dividing up the pie, were very fair to New York,” said U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).  “I wish the pie had been a little bigger, but in terms of the percentage we got, no one can complain,” he added.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg supports the new system of distribution, according to his spokesman, Ed Skyler.

The $200 million award to New York City is a “clear declaration that, as the mayor has said, the old population-based funding formula was flawed and all future funding will be based on risk and threat analysis,” Skyler said (Meek/Saul, New York Daily News).

The city will receive $125 million to cover extra policing costs incurred because of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the New York Post reported today.  The Homeland Security Department will also send the city $30 million to install radiological sensors, $9.4 million to secure the city’s ports, $27 million to provide transit security and $2.6 million for other local transportation agencies (Brian Blomquist, New York Post, May 15).

Back to top

Al-Qaeda:  Saudi Nationals Behind Bombings, Saudi Foreign Minister Says

A group of 15 Saudi nationals is believed to have carried out a series of bombings in Saudi Arabia earlier this week, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said yesterday (see GSN, May 14).

“The fact that the terrorism happened is an indication of shortcomings, and we have to learn from our mistakes and seek to improve our performance in this respect,” Prince Saud said.

Those responsible for the attacks “will regret what they have done because they have turned this country into one fist aimed at putting an end to this heinous wound in the body of this nation so that it won’t return,” he said (Associated Press/Salon.com, May 15).

The people responsible for this week’s bombings are believed to be part of an al-Qaeda cell whose members fought a gun battle with Saudi authorities last week before escaping, Saudi officials said.  The cell, which has up to 60 members, was formed in Saudi Arabia after the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, officials said.  It is believed to be led by Khaled Jehani, who was previously based in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, they said (Jerusalem Post, May 15).

U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Robert Jordan said Washington had unsuccessfully attempted to get security increased at Western residential compounds in Riyadh prior to the bombings.

“As soon as we learned of this particular threat information, we contacted the Saudi government,” Jordan said on CBS’ The Early Show.  “We continue to work with the Saudis on this, but they did not, as of the time of this tragic event, provide the additional security we requested,” he said.

Prince Saud yesterday denied that he had received such a request.

“Each time the American embassy or any other embassy seeks the intensification of security measures, the government fulfills this request,” he said (Associated Press/Salon.com).

Back to top

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

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP