All Systems Go! (Or Stop, Or. . .)

“And one thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked.” – Janet Napolitano, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, after a terrorist’s bomb failed to explode on a Detroit-bound jet.

“Great system, Janet Baby!”  -- Osama Bin Laden, master terrorist vowing to stop hiring explosives experts trained by Homeland Security.

Federal authorities have charged a Nigerian man with terrorism after an explosive he smuggled aboard a jet bound from Europe to Detroit burned instead of exploding, but no charges have been filed against the Obama administration bureaucrats who let him fly in the first place.

Nor have charges been filed against the “security” teams in Nigeria and Europe who let a 20-something guy with no checked luggage buy a ticket with cash and board a U.S.-bound jetliner with a six-inch tube of explosive and a chemical-filled syringe.

Nor have charges been filed against the system-loving bureaucrats at the U.S. embassy in Nigeria who didn’t do much after they heard this guy’s father warn that his son was  an incipient nut case who seemed to hate Americans and belong to the radical Islamist fringe.

In all of these cases, everyone was just doing their job in a working system.

So Janet Napolitano may be right that the system worked, but maybe we ought to think about a different system. Our responses to terrorists with this one haven’t been stellar.

Richard Reid tried to blow up a Miami-bound jetliner in 2001 with a similar explosive in his shoe. Our final threat response was to make everyone take off their shoes before going through airline passenger screening.

Since Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to set off a bomb hidden in his pants, perhaps our final response will be to make everyone take off their pants before entering the metal detector.

That could be effective, since the sight of millions of Americans trying to travel barefoot and bareass might so distract the terrorists that they wouldn’t have time to find another place to put a bomb. Or buy one that works.

However this all sorts out, it will certainly be interesting. Will Janet Napolitano stick with her working system? Will Osama Bin Laden finally hire someone who knows something about explosives?

Stay tuned. The program, alas, is far from over.

###

Homeland Security’s Laughter Lexicon

 

 

The Department of Homeland Security’s real strategy for keeping the bad guys away surfaced Tuesday in a Washington Times story that made it clear our plan is for terrorists to laugh themselves to death.

 

A couple weeks ago, word got out that our ever-vigilant DHS guardians had decided returning war veterans might be prone to extremism, especially right-wing extremism. You know -- trained and experienced killers and all that.

 

The howl over that anti-veteran slur came from everywhere. But Tuesday’s Washington Times story says even before that bureaucratic belch, DHS had put together – and hastily deep-sixed – a Domestic Extremism Lexicon.

 

The DHS document said the lexicon would assist “ federal, state, local, and tribal homeland security and law enforcement officials in conducting analytic activities.”

 

Maybe, but the  lexicon seems more anal than analytic.

 

Every paragraph begins with (U//FOUO), which Homeland Security says means Unclassified For Official Use Only. (Readers are encouraged to explore what other uses the letter F, U and O might have in describing this tax-dollar-supported effort.)

 

The  Domestic Extremism Lexicon says its purpose is “definitions for key terms and phrases that often appear in DHS analysis that addresses the nature and scope of the threat that domestic, non-Islamic extremism poses to the United States. Definitions were derived from a variety of open source materials and unclassified information, then further developed during facilitated workshops with DHS intelligence analysts knowledgeable about domestic, non-Islamic extremism in the United States. “

 

Sounds pretty impressive, until you read the first of the definitions so thoroughly researched:

 

“(U) aboveground (U//FOUO) A term used to describe extremist groups or individuals who operate overtly and portray themselves as law-abiding.”

 

If the NYPD, LAPD, Chicago, Dallas, Miami and other major police departments were blown away by the insight and clear thinking this revealed, they kept it quiet.

 

That may be because they were stunned to learn also that:

 

“(U) lone terrorist (U//FOUO) An individual motivated by extremist ideology to commit acts of criminal violence independent of any larger terrorist organization. (also: lone wolf)”

 

And in a document remarkable for its completeness of purpose, even if it may not have been the intended purpose, law enforcement agencies could discover:

 

(U) underground (U//FOUO) A term used to describe clandestine extremist groups, individuals, or their activities.

 

We also learn:

 

(U) Cuban independence extremism (U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who do not recognize the legitimacy of the Communist Cuban Government and who attempt to subvert it through acts of violence, mainly within the United States. (also: anti-Castro groups)

 

The Department of Homeland Security is clearly so dedicated that it forgot the Kennedy administration-backed armed invasion at Cuba’s Bay of Pigs, or that the United States has no formal diplomatic relations with Cuba, both of which would seem to fit the terms of its definitions. There’s probably a good explanation for this, but it can’t be shared because, as the document says right at the top:

 

(U) Warning: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating toFOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval of an authorized DHS official.

 

Those of us who pay taxes probably don’t have a problem with this sort of thing being exempt from public release. The challenge is to get it exempt from public funding.

 

###

Back To Top