HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Commentary Too - Oct 31, 2004 - Printable Version
- Homeland Security: Now Less Than Ever
by Mark Faulk
Homeland security. It's the one issue that George W. Bush has hinged his entire re-election campaign on. This mantra has been repeated in speech after speech, including this one in Florida on Oct. 23, where Bush said, "the choice voters face could not be clearer. You cannot lead our nation to the decisive victory on which the security of every American family depends if you do not see the true dangers of the post-Sept. 11 world." And, amazingly, according to virtually every major poll, the majority of voters still believe that Bush would do a better job on "terrorism" and "protecting our families". Bush has enjoyed a double digit lead in both categories throughout the entire election. Simply put, Americans believe that they are safer from terrorists, both at home and abroad, with George W. Bush at the helm. What then, is the truth of the situation? What exactly has this administration, with all it's posturing and tough talk, done to actually protect you and your family? I must be missing something here, because the facts say that this is an administration that has been all talk, backed up by very little action.
Ground zero: Let's start where it all began: the World Trade Center, New York City, September 11, 2001. After the most chilling attacks ever against the United States, it seems only logical that we would first secure the city where the attacks happened. Sadly, we have failed miserably on that count.
New York, which no one would deny is the highest risk target for future terrorist attacks, is ranked 49th in per capita federal spending for homeland security. California, listed as the state with the second highest risk of terrorist attack, is ranked dead last in per capita spending. The states that received the most per capita funding? Wyoming and Alaska. If Osama bin Laden decides, God forbid, to launch a terrorist attack on the grizzly bears at Yellowstone Park or the polar bears in Alaska, we'll be prepared. Who said that Bush never did anything to protect our wildlife? (And speaking of Osama, do you feel more secure now that he has resurfaced with a new video just days before the election? Does the fact that the person who planned 9/11 is back again make you want to re-elect the very person whom he has eluded for over three years?)
Incredibly, three of the four newspapers in New York City have endorsed Bush, all trumpeting his record on fighting terrorism, including the New York Daily News, which ran an article last year entitled "We get $5-a-head for security: N.Y. is top terror risk but ranks 49th in aid", which opened with this not-so-ringing endorsement of this administration's efforts to protect their state: "New York, the world's premier target for terror, gets less homeland security funding per person than virtually any state in the nation. Man for man and woman for woman, Wyoming (population 493,782) does better - $38.31 per person, compared with the paltry $5.47 in counterterrorism funds spent on each New Yorker." www.nydailynews.com/front/story/139687p-123976c.html
And that's not all. Cutbacks in federal spending have left New York City, which has been the target of six separate plots by Islamist terrorists in the past decade, with nearly 6,000 fewer police than before 9/11. In fact, New York,"America's front line", will receive nearly $61 million less in federal public-safety subsidies than it did before 9/11. The Bush Administration recently eliminated funding to upgrade police and fire department communications systems. As a result, New York police and firefighters are still using the same outdated radio systems that failed during the 9/11 attacks, and were the direct cause of the deaths of 120 firefighters in the World Trade Center who did not receive the warnings to evacuate the buildings before they collapsed.
A Republican controlled Congress, led by House Majority leader Tom Delay, that should have put our safety first has instead turned homeland security spending into pork-barrel politics as usual.
Protecting the Homeland: It's not just New York that is being short changed in spending on homeland security. While the Bush Administration has given huge tax cuts to the ultra-rich, overall funding for state and federal homeland security grants is being slashed by $800 million for next year. Grants for equipment and personnel for firefighters is being cut by $246 million, and first responder training funding is being cut in half. In other words, fighting the war in Iraq and giving tax breaks to the rich is more important than funding those who protect the real "front lines" right here at home.
Airport Security: If there is a single area where we need to have absolute protection, it is our airports. Instead, our airport security is in a shambles. The initial airport security screening force of 55,000 has been cut by thousands, will be cut to 48,000 by the end of the year, and the GOP controlled House Appropriations Committee has required the TSA to cut that number to 45,000.
Three years after 9/11, walk-through metal detectors at gates and the X-ray machines for carry-on bags still can't detect plastic explosives. Stories of improperly inspected baggage and passengers have been reported at an alarming rate, many sounding like terrorist acts waiting to happen. In fact, at least 45 former TSA employees have claimed wrongful termination for speaking out about failures in the screening process. Among the horror stories that have been reported on an almost weekly basis: a conveyor belt jammed with hundreds of bags at Houston's Hobby Airport, where the managers ordered screeners to send the bags though unscreened (they refused, but managers threw at least 80 unscreened bags onto conveyor belts that loaded them directly onto airplanes), reports of unscreened bags being loaded on planes in Seattle, dozens of reports of guns and box knives (just like the ones used to carry out the 9/11 hijackings) getting past screeners undetected. One former DHS employee that I spoke with told me, "I've had many sleepless nights wondering if today is the day that another 9/11 will happen."
An article in the Seattle Times detailed massive failures in the system in a July 13, 2004 article entitled "Airport-security system in US riddled with failures" http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001976972_tsa11.html
And then there are the Air Marshals. Originally touted as our protection in the air, they are forced to dress like "Men in Black", preboard and sit only in first class, and ask for the "Air Marshall discount" at hotels. And yet, they are supposed to remain anonymous during flights. Who the hell makes these rules up? On one occasion, the TSA asked Air Marshals to cancel long flights with hotel stays to save money - the day before the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning about airline hijackings.
And if that's not enough, there is the touchy issue of privatization of airline security. On November 19, just 17 days after the election, airports will be allowed to submit applications to "opt out" of the federal screening program and hire private security firms. Forget about "October surprises", the real surprises are all scheduled for after the election. http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=3750
How well has privatized airport security worked in the past?
In May 2000, Argenbright Security, Inc., a private security firm contracted to provide security at several large U.S. airports, pleaded guilty to allowing untrained employees, including some with criminal backgrounds, to operate passenger screening stations in clear violation of FAA regulations, and was fined over $1.5 million. Why is this significant? On September 11, all four of the planes hijacked and used in the terrorist attacks took off from airports at which Argenbright had been responsible for security.
Privatized security was the main reason for the failures that allowed the tragedy of 9/11. What makes the Bush Administration believe that this time will be any different? Although it's true that the current system is in need of a massive overhaul, turning our security over to companies interested only in making a profit is not the answer.
Terrorism by Sea: We currently screen only 2% of the seven million cargo containers that enter the US, yet Bush's 2005 budget calls for $50 million for port security grants, down from $200 million in his 2004 budget. According to the CIA, "The United States is more likely to be attacked with a weapon of mass destruction smuggled into the country aboard a ship than one delivered by a ballistic missile."
In the time it takes you to read this article, 140 unscreened cargo containers will enter our country. It only takes one to set off the next terrorist attack.
Securing our Borders: I'll sum this up in one sentence: Over 8,000 illegal immigrants cross our borders every day. We have just 1,000 border patrol agents patrolling the 5,000 mile long Canadian border, meaning one agent patrols five miles of border. And, according to the Washington Post, "The Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, Canada's domestic anti-terrorism agency, has acknowledged that Al Qaeda maintains cells and personnel in Canada, which possess 'the capability and conviction to provide support for terrorist activities in North America.'"
In the time it takes you to read this article, 65 people will have illegally crossed our borders undetected. Any of them could be a terrorist.
The Terrorist President: How can we re-elect a President who has failed miserably at the one thing that he claims to be best qualified for? How can we support an administration that repeatedly places the interests of the rich and powerful above the safety of it's citizens? On the one hand, we are constantly reminded that we are always in danger (Who can forget the "plastic and duct tape" fiasco, or the "anthrax in the mailbox" scare?), but at the same time, this President has left our country wide open for the next 9/11.
George W. Bush's strategy for dealing with the very real threat of terrorism reminds me of the nuclear attack drills that our schools used to practice when I was in elementary school (oh, so long ago). Our protection against nuclear attack in the sixties? Crouch under our desk with our head between our legs. Or, as a popular poster at the time put it, "In case of nuclear attack, bend over, tuck your head firmly between your legs, and kiss your ass goodbye".
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).