|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
News Search
|
|
28-03-2005 The Scotsman Can billions spent on front line really keep US safe? By Gethin Chamberlain A DULL February day in Jacksonville. A light drizzle is falling on the cars and lorries queuing to get into the city's port. Uniformed security staff check their passes, wave the drivers through. It's not glamorous, but this is the front line of the war on terror. On the waterfront, giant cranes unload containers off the cargo ship that has just docked. Some of the containers will be scanned by the latest weapon to be employed in that war, radiation scanners. None of it is cheap. A new electronic monitoring system for the port cost dollars 1.6 million (GBP 850,000) and the scanners will take a sizeable chunk out of the port authority's dollars 3.4 million security budget this year. Still, the port is very proud of its scanners. They can detect radioactive material in quite small quantities and, with the fear of a dirty bomb attack uppermost in the minds of many in the US security community, that is something that matters. The only drawback is that the scanners can also be set off by consignments of bananas. And granite. And some sands. This is the fundamental problem the United States faces in its war on terror: however hard it tries, there is always something else it could do. It goes to the heart of the argument over whether the US should adopt the "Fortress America" strategy that some would advocate, or come to accept that it must live with an element of risk. The argument remains unresolved. The Scotsman has been granted unique access to some of the leading agencies involved in the war on terror, including the US state department and leading law enforcement officials. The story they tell is of a war which is eating up billions of dollars and creating an entire industry centred around homeland security. Businesses are raking in the money as a burgeoning army of bureaucrats try to spend the money they are being allocated to fight that war. Often those at the cutting edge are not sure if the money is making a difference, but at least they can be sure of one thing: if there is another 9/11, at least they can say that they were doing something. In Washington, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention has a hi-tech new dollars 3 million control room, fitted out with multiple TV screens and walls of computer screens to enable it to monitor real-time outbreaks. At the department of defence's Joint Force Headquarters - National Capital Region in Fort McNair, Washington, there is a new operations room to handle any emergency. There is even a mobile unit that can operate independently for 72 hours. Neither has been built to withstand an unconventional attack with nuclear, biological or chemical agents. All over the US, there are more control rooms, more task forces, more dedicated counter-terrorist units being established. It all costs money. The annual budget for the department of homeland security is dollars 39 billion. Arnaud de Borchgrave, of the Centre for Strategic and International Affairs in Washington, describes the cost as "frightening". The only reason, he says, that the dollar doesn't collapse is that those foreign governments which have bought US treasury cheques, and therefore funded American borrowing, cannot cash them. A former CIA officer, now working at the University of Oklahoma, is worried about the amount of bureaucracy. "That scares me," he said. "I can imagine endless meetings that produce a lot of papers." He has been advising a group that is planning to hire 600 security analysts. "That is a crazy way of looking at things," he said. THE Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism received dollars 50 million to look into preventing and responding to terrorism after 168 people died in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. It has accumulated data on various terrorist groups and attacks, although officials cannot cite any instances where the database has helped prevent another attack. A senior official there complained that other organisations were jumping in to grab a share of the vast pot of cash that had appeared for counter-terrorist measures post 9/11. Inevitably, with some existing groups being brought together under new umbrella departments, there have been tensions. "It would be good to solve some of the internecine bureaucratic squabbles," said Alan Capps at the Homeland Security Institute, which carries out work for the department of homeland security. "We take one step forward and two steps back. We make problems for ourselves and it shouldn't be that difficult." But elected officials are determined to be seen to be doing the right thing. Ernest Istook, an Oklahoma congressman, said they would find the money to continue the war. "It is a big country and at the start of World War Two no-one appreciated what the US economy was capable of doing when it put its mind to it," he said. "This nation is an enormous economic engine and I don't see a limit to our ability. The real question is whether there is the will, because if we have the will, we are relentless." Jacksonville, in Florida, is a prime example of the problems facing those charged with thwarting terrorists. Its port has three cargo terminals and a cruise terminal, handles 7.3 million tonnes of cargo a year and contributes dollars 1.3 billion to the local economy. It is protected by guards and a security system which involves extensive background checks. Staff in the city's sheriff's office have the will and are convinced that they are doing a good job. There is a balance to be struck, however. There are roughly 500 million individual entries into the US every year, as well as seven to eight million containers. They come in through 300 ports of entry, by air, land and sea. In the immigration and customs section of the department of homeland security in Washington, there is a degree of realism. One high ranking official spelled it out, saying: "Without international co-operation, we can't have homeland security. We can't just seal the borders. We are trying to achieve a balance of security without damaging trade. You can't open and examine everything." A report by the Rand Corporation, which has carried out research for the US government on its preparedness for terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, concluded: "There will never be a 100 per cent guarantee of security for our people, the economy, and our society. We must resist the urge to seek total security - it is not achievable and drains our attention from those things that can be accomplished." A senior Rand analyst said that there has been a drop in enthusiasm for the war on terror and that it had lost momentum. Faced with what one very senior official in the department of homeland security described as "an overload of information", one of the biggest problems is working out what is terrorism-related and what is ordinary criminal activity. Large numbers of investigators are tasked solely with chasing terrorist funding. The Patriot Act - a range of sweeping powers introduced to combat terrorism, which have been criticised for infringing civil liberties - now places the burden on financial institutions to inform the authorities about any suspicious activity within 30 days of an incident. THE result has been a flood of reports to the US Federal Reserve in New York because banks are reluctant to risk prosecution for failing to comply. Officials at the Fed said there were no resources to investigate all those reports, hindering their other efforts. There are 400,000 to 600,000 money transfers through the Fed every day, one official there said. Most of the transfers of cash used to fund the 9/11 attacks came through the Fed. "There are no guarantees that we will spot anything now," the official said, even though security is tighter. The authorities suspect that some terrorist groups are using frauds to raise funds. Identity theft is rife: one New York state prosecutor said she realised how widespread the problem was when her own daughter mentioned that she was thinking of getting false papers so she could drink under-age in bars. There are numerous departments chasing the money trail, with a degree of success, though there are plenty of hurdles to overcome. A state department official described how the offices of a relief agency group with links to the United Kingdom had been raided in Ohio last year as part of a crackdown on terrorist funding. It had been added to the list of designated organisations, but there were problems persuading other United Nations members to do the same. "It is going to be a nightmare because they have already changed their name," the official said. "That is why we are sitting ducks. "One Asian country said it would not support this because one of the bad guys was from their country and they didn't want that. This is about politics and horse-trading, and we need support." Officials complain that their hands are tied by bank security laws, even in the US. "When you see Switzerland and European countries and even the US where the banks are not co-operating it makes you wonder," the official said. "I'm very fearful that we're so vulnerable." Since 11 September, 2001, there have been 375 terrorist cases, 195 convictions and 515 people removed from the US linked to 9/11 investigations, according to officials at the department of justice. But they have complained that they, too, are hampered by arguments over the extent to which the war on terror can be prosecuted. "Some people have been released - two in particular - whose release concerns me," one official said. "There are lots of controversial things that are happening; questions about standards of proof. It is a constantly evolving area. So many things are changing, literally on a daily basis. "America is looking itself in the mirror and making very controversial decisions, balancing freedom and the things that Americans think are so dear. We are in conflict with a lot of other places. We have got some smart people in high places but sometimes we make the right decisions and sometimes we don't." Other officials complain about political intervention. In one Florida county health department, a senior official protested that knee-jerk responses from the administration physically hampered their efforts. "When someone suggested that people went out and got plastic sheets and duct tape [to seal up their houses] to guard against chemical attack, that was an example of politics," he said. "It was designed to give people an impression that there was something they could do, but it was ineffective and the administration got burned by that. When a decision is based on politics rather than science, it is harmful." SOME at the cutting edge have simply resigned themselves to getting on with the job in the hope they are making a difference. A special agent in Florida described how a large part of the job involved simply dispelling misconceptions. "We got a lot of phone calls after 9/11 of the 'my neighbour is an Arab' variety," he said. "But we also get serious calls." He doubted that there was an active terrorist cell in his area that was out to cause harm, although there was plenty of talk of sleeper cells. "As long as they are really good at keeping it to themselves, it is hard to do anything about it," he said. But he didn't seem to mind. "A lot of the reason for the [anti-terrorist] task forces is for public perception. But I think that they do serve a purpose. The Patriot Act is making a tremendous difference. It forces the FBI and CIA to communicate and share information. I love the Patriot Act." Others, too, remain positive. Major Kerry Pettingill, the director of the Oklahoma office of homeland security, said he was convinced terrorist attacks had been stopped. "I believe that people have been stopped at the border and people are being trained to report what they see," he said. "I firmly believe that these things have prevented attacks. We are very much an aware society compared to what we used to be." His department receives dollars 100 million in grant money. There are no inmates in Oklahoma's jails on terrorism charges. Major Pettingill acknowledged that it was not an easy battle to win. "We're just doing it haphazardly. We are throwing a few resources at it, so we can say we are working on it rather than going at it full-scale," he said. "We are very good at fighting our last battles, but I'm a firm believer that a terrorist attack is only limited to the imagination of the terrorist, and it is difficult to outguess everyone."
|
|
||||
|
................................................................................................................. Copyright ©2004 Gethin Chamberlain. All rights reserved. |
|||||||
