White House Watch: Ann McFeatters / National security folly
If a senator can't get on a flight, how will ordinary Americans fare?
Sunday, August 22, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Ted Kennedy was trying to get on a plane in Washington to go home to Boston. He was denied a seat by an airline agent who refused to say why the senator, who had been flying to and from Boston nearly every week for 42 years, could not board.
Kennedy, one of the nation's most recognizable politicians and a Massachusetts senator since 1962, went to the agent's supervisor, who eventually, reluctantly, let him fly. At the airport in Boston, Kennedy ran into the same situation when trying to return to Washington. Over several weeks, he ran into the same difficulty three more times.
Finally, Tom Ridge, the allegedly powerful head of the massive new Department of Homeland Security, called the 72-year-old lawmaker to apologize and vowed it wouldn't happen again.
It happened again.
It turned out that Kennedy was on the Transportation Security Administration's "watch list" of suspicious people who might be linked to terrorism.
Kennedy, relating the story to his colleagues and members of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission this past week, asked, "How in the world are average Americans going to be treated if they get on that list?"
There were some jokes about "Irish terrorist" and Republican vengeance against a liberal icon, but nobody had an acceptable answer.
It's been a tough week for the federal government, trying to fend off charges that it is too focused on the peripheral and not doing a good enough job on the core of what really matters in the war on terrorism.
According to the Associated Press, federal prosecutors this past week "acknowledged a possible translation error in a key piece of evidence used to arrest and detain a mosque leader accused of supporting terrorism."
Yassin M. Aref, an imam in Albany, N.Y., was indicted in a sting operation in which a federal agent tried to sell Aref a shoulder-fired missile. It turned out that a word in an Arabic notebook used to indict Aref was not "commander," but "brother." He faces up to 70 years in prison if convicted.
Then The New York Times reported on Abdullah al Kidd, an American citizen who played basketball at the University of Idaho and was a doctoral student in Islamic studies. He was handcuffed and arrested in March 2003 at Dulles International Airport near Washington on suspicion of knowing a suspected terrorist. He said he sat naked in isolation for hours, was imprisoned and eventually forced to live in a small apartment with his in-laws instead of returning to school. The legal justification for holding him was the federal material-witness law. A few weeks ago, having never been charged with a crime or called as a witness in any case, he was released.
Meanwhile, he's lost his scholarship and his wife and his daughter and his reputation.
This should make the blood of every American boil. It is as frightening as the arrest of any innocent citizen in any of the world's worst dictatorships. But it happened a few miles from the U.S. Capitol, the White House, the Pentagon and the Justice Department, which condoned it. About 60 other Americans have been held under the material-witness law since 9/11.
The Senate, probing the 9/11 commissioners on their recommendations on setting up a new post of intelligence czar, got a first-rate answer on what to do about terrorism from Lee Hamilton, the commission's vice chairman, a few days ago.
He said the Patriot Act, which may be used to restrict civil liberties, needs a thorough national discussion. But more important than new organizational charts and more bureaucracy, he said, this country needs to convince Muslims around the world that the United States is on their side and is not their enemy.
"Stretching from North Africa to Indonesia, you have millions and billions of people who, if polls are correct, don't think very highly of us," Hamilton said. They may be sympathetic to Osama bin Laden without endorsing his forms of violence, he said. But there is nothing in the lives of millions of young Muslims to give them any hope.
"What does Osama bin Laden offer these people? Death. We have a lot to offer. For example, increased scholarships. There are a lot of things we can do that are symbolic but important. We're not going to solve this problem ... in my lifetime. But we have to get started on it."
Kennedy and every other senator in the room nodded in agreement. As they left the room, Kennedy took with him his heavy, dusty book of study commissions -- esteemed commissions, he warned, whose recommendations went nowhere.
Posters notes/questions.
1. Surprisingly, to me, Kennedy might have actually been concerned at the fate of Mr., Mrs., Ms. Everyperson, who somehow became caught up in a similar bureaucratic cluster****. However such situation might turn out, I'd bet my very last dollar against the offended party ever receiving a phone call from whomever it might be that headed up the Department of Homeland Security, or ANY other form of apology.
2. Re comment from Lee Hamilton, chairman of the "late" 9/11 Commission, and his thoughts on The Patriot Act, "the act needs a thorough national discussion", true as far as it goes. What is or was really needed was this sort of examination or discussion BEFORE PASSAGE OF THE DAMNED THING.
3. A passing note, re another form of bureaucratic offense against the people of this country, the vast majority of whom are law abiding. As readers of this site are well aware, anyone buying a handgun, long guns too in some states, from a licensed dealer, is required to undergo a NICS Background Check, prior to completion of the sale. These checks are run either by the FBI or in "point of contact" states, by the state police. How many firearm purchases by law abiding citizens, have been "messed up" and or delayed, possibly worse, as a result of FBI bungling or similar activity by "state authorities"? When rejected purchases were eventually straightened out, did the offended party, the law abiding purchaser, ever receive any sort of "apology" from any of the idiot bureaucrats that caused the problem in the first place? Anyone want to make book on the possibilities of an apology being offered? I didn't think so. I do wonder about one aspect of the foregoing. What might Senator Kennedy have to say re such example of abuse of the citizenry?
If a senator can't get on a flight, how will ordinary Americans fare?
Sunday, August 22, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Ted Kennedy was trying to get on a plane in Washington to go home to Boston. He was denied a seat by an airline agent who refused to say why the senator, who had been flying to and from Boston nearly every week for 42 years, could not board.
Kennedy, one of the nation's most recognizable politicians and a Massachusetts senator since 1962, went to the agent's supervisor, who eventually, reluctantly, let him fly. At the airport in Boston, Kennedy ran into the same situation when trying to return to Washington. Over several weeks, he ran into the same difficulty three more times.
Finally, Tom Ridge, the allegedly powerful head of the massive new Department of Homeland Security, called the 72-year-old lawmaker to apologize and vowed it wouldn't happen again.
It happened again.
It turned out that Kennedy was on the Transportation Security Administration's "watch list" of suspicious people who might be linked to terrorism.
Kennedy, relating the story to his colleagues and members of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission this past week, asked, "How in the world are average Americans going to be treated if they get on that list?"
There were some jokes about "Irish terrorist" and Republican vengeance against a liberal icon, but nobody had an acceptable answer.
It's been a tough week for the federal government, trying to fend off charges that it is too focused on the peripheral and not doing a good enough job on the core of what really matters in the war on terrorism.
According to the Associated Press, federal prosecutors this past week "acknowledged a possible translation error in a key piece of evidence used to arrest and detain a mosque leader accused of supporting terrorism."
Yassin M. Aref, an imam in Albany, N.Y., was indicted in a sting operation in which a federal agent tried to sell Aref a shoulder-fired missile. It turned out that a word in an Arabic notebook used to indict Aref was not "commander," but "brother." He faces up to 70 years in prison if convicted.
Then The New York Times reported on Abdullah al Kidd, an American citizen who played basketball at the University of Idaho and was a doctoral student in Islamic studies. He was handcuffed and arrested in March 2003 at Dulles International Airport near Washington on suspicion of knowing a suspected terrorist. He said he sat naked in isolation for hours, was imprisoned and eventually forced to live in a small apartment with his in-laws instead of returning to school. The legal justification for holding him was the federal material-witness law. A few weeks ago, having never been charged with a crime or called as a witness in any case, he was released.
Meanwhile, he's lost his scholarship and his wife and his daughter and his reputation.
This should make the blood of every American boil. It is as frightening as the arrest of any innocent citizen in any of the world's worst dictatorships. But it happened a few miles from the U.S. Capitol, the White House, the Pentagon and the Justice Department, which condoned it. About 60 other Americans have been held under the material-witness law since 9/11.
The Senate, probing the 9/11 commissioners on their recommendations on setting up a new post of intelligence czar, got a first-rate answer on what to do about terrorism from Lee Hamilton, the commission's vice chairman, a few days ago.
He said the Patriot Act, which may be used to restrict civil liberties, needs a thorough national discussion. But more important than new organizational charts and more bureaucracy, he said, this country needs to convince Muslims around the world that the United States is on their side and is not their enemy.
"Stretching from North Africa to Indonesia, you have millions and billions of people who, if polls are correct, don't think very highly of us," Hamilton said. They may be sympathetic to Osama bin Laden without endorsing his forms of violence, he said. But there is nothing in the lives of millions of young Muslims to give them any hope.
"What does Osama bin Laden offer these people? Death. We have a lot to offer. For example, increased scholarships. There are a lot of things we can do that are symbolic but important. We're not going to solve this problem ... in my lifetime. But we have to get started on it."
Kennedy and every other senator in the room nodded in agreement. As they left the room, Kennedy took with him his heavy, dusty book of study commissions -- esteemed commissions, he warned, whose recommendations went nowhere.
Posters notes/questions.
1. Surprisingly, to me, Kennedy might have actually been concerned at the fate of Mr., Mrs., Ms. Everyperson, who somehow became caught up in a similar bureaucratic cluster****. However such situation might turn out, I'd bet my very last dollar against the offended party ever receiving a phone call from whomever it might be that headed up the Department of Homeland Security, or ANY other form of apology.
2. Re comment from Lee Hamilton, chairman of the "late" 9/11 Commission, and his thoughts on The Patriot Act, "the act needs a thorough national discussion", true as far as it goes. What is or was really needed was this sort of examination or discussion BEFORE PASSAGE OF THE DAMNED THING.
3. A passing note, re another form of bureaucratic offense against the people of this country, the vast majority of whom are law abiding. As readers of this site are well aware, anyone buying a handgun, long guns too in some states, from a licensed dealer, is required to undergo a NICS Background Check, prior to completion of the sale. These checks are run either by the FBI or in "point of contact" states, by the state police. How many firearm purchases by law abiding citizens, have been "messed up" and or delayed, possibly worse, as a result of FBI bungling or similar activity by "state authorities"? When rejected purchases were eventually straightened out, did the offended party, the law abiding purchaser, ever receive any sort of "apology" from any of the idiot bureaucrats that caused the problem in the first place? Anyone want to make book on the possibilities of an apology being offered? I didn't think so. I do wonder about one aspect of the foregoing. What might Senator Kennedy have to say re such example of abuse of the citizenry?
