Can Junior's Protection Racket Last?

Friday, 07 March 2008

CAN THE US NATIONAL SECURITY BUREAUCRACY REMAIN RELEVANT?

The elephant is great and powerful, but prefers to be blind.
David Halberstam, The Best and the Brightest (1972)

(Here's an aside on the future of the "national security" system. Please bear with me as I work on it.)

The US national security budget is nearly $700 billion a year (much more if the total costs of Iraq/Afghanistan are thrown in), more than the rest of the world combined. Unfortunately, within that entire budget there isn't a single research organization or think tank that is seriously studying, analyzing or synthesizing the future of warfare and terrorism. Fatally, most of the big thinkers working on the future of warfare do their critical work in their spare time, usually while working other jobs to put food on the table for their families. In sum, this deficit in imagination will soon be the critical determinant on whether the national security bureaucracy remains relevant in a rapidly changing global security environment. That relevance is the key to its future.

Here's why. The need for relevancy became apparent on 9/11, when a small group of attackers hit the US without regard, or even a passing thought, to the trillions the US had previously invested in national security. The public's response, this first time, was to pour more trillions to correct that failure. When another unanticipated situation occurs again (and it will, likely in a increasingly rapid succession as small group warfare climbs an exponential ramp of productivity improvements), the public will not be as generous as they were the first time to a legacy organization that can't/won't do the job we pay it for. In fact, the public's displeasure will likely be expressed in a series of major defunding events for the national security bureaucracy. Here's the process that will cause it:

• Funding will already be very scarce. The combination of demographically driven entitlement spending (the first baby boomers retire this year), ballooning deficits (funded by harder to get and more expensive debt), and an inability to raise new federal revenue (money under pressure moves global) means that money will be very tight. As a result, the Federal government's discretionary budget will suffer significant and prolonged shrinkage.
• A need to show results. Given insufficient funding over a prolonged period, much more attention will be paid to the returns of investment from government programs (a result of too many programs chasing an ever tighter budget in an increasingly transparent society). Those programs that don't perform well, will fall under the axe. Further, citizens, who increasingly view themselves as customers of government security services rather than passive recipients, will be increasingly critical of failures from programs that cost plenty but deliver little. ( Let's hope this includes all the corporations involved in this mess. It's not the U.S. Army who has effed everything to kingdom come. Can you spell Blackwater? KBR? Halliburton? Just for starters?
  
• Competition from below. New, grass roots efforts at the state and local levels will compete favorably against national programs. As in: if the federal bureaucracy can't protect us, we will do the job ourselves locally (New York City has already paved that pathway with its own counter-terrorism center). Expect a fight between local and federal, a fight where the local wins.

In short, the next black swan is likely to do the opposite of what the national security bureaucracy thinks. Rather than be the driver of massive rounds of new funding, it could turn it into a husk of its former self.

Given that simply remaining relevant will become the key to future public funding of our national security system, will the bureaucracy react to save its own hide? Likely not. The smart money is on a failure to change, irrelevance, and organizational dissolution.

NOTE: If you could get the top 20 people in the warfare/tech futures space under the same virtual roof and focused their output, the result would be complete dominance of the idea space. Low cost. High value. Within a year, their output would dominate the press and policy.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

National Security Experts Are Grim on Iraq and GWOT

Published on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 by the Inter Press Service

National Security Experts Grim on Terror War

by Jim Lobe

A new survey of more than 100 U.S. foreign policy experts -- both Republicans and Democrats, as well as retired military and intelligence professionals -- has found deep pessimism over the "global war on terror" and even deeper pessimism over the war in Iraq. According to the survey, the second in the last six months carried out by Foreign Policy magazine and the Centre for American Progress, two out of three foreign policy experts oppose President George W. Bush's plans to increase troop levels in Iraq, while nearly nine out of 10 say the war there is undermining U.S. national security. Overall, three out of four respondents disagreed with assertion that Washington "is winning the war on terror", while 81 percent said the world is becoming "more dangerous" to the United States and its people. The survey also found wide, although narrowing differences compared to six months ago, between expert opinion and the views of the general public on a range of issues related to Iraq and the war on terrorism. Experts were significantly more pessimistic that the public at large and voiced considerably less confidence in the Bush administration's performance. The survey, called "The Terrorism Index" and published in the upcoming issue of Foreign Policy, is based on interviews with former senior government officials who have served in both Republican and Democratic administrations, as well as independent analysts, experts and journalists who have covered national security issues. Eighty percent of respondents have served in the U.S. government, and more than half in the executive branch, including in the White House or in top cabinet posts. Twenty-six percent served in the military and 18 percent in the intelligence community. As to their political leanings, 30 percent of respondents identified themselves as "conservative"; 42 percent said they were "moderate"; and 44 percent "liberal". But the survey organisers weighted the results so that the views of self-described "conservatives" were given equal representation with those of the "liberals". When broken down ideologically, 43 percent of the conservatives polled said they believed the U.S. is winning the war on terror, compared to 50 percent of conservatives who disagreed. Only five percent of both moderates and liberals said they thought Washington was winning. By contrast, 46 percent of the general public told interviewers in a Pew Center for the People & the Press survey conducted last November that Washington is winning the war on terrorism, although that number has shrunk to around 33 percent in the most recent polling. Asked whether they believed Bush had a plan to protect the country from terrorism, seven out of 10 of the expert respondents -- including nearly 40 percent of the self-described conservatives -- said no. By contrast, 51 percent of the public said last November that Bush does indeed have a plan. Experts were particularly pessimistic on Iraq and U.S. policy there. Eighty-eight percent of the experts said the war is having a negative impact on U.S. national security. Asked to rate the administration's job in Iraq on a 10-point scale, 92 percent of respondents -- including 82 percent of conservatives -- described it as below five. Fifty-nine percent of the entire group gave the administration the lowest possible rating (1-2), including a plurality of 48 percent of conservatives. Significantly, among 81 percent of experts who said the world is becoming "more dangerous" to the U.S., a large plurality identified the Iraq war as "one principal reason" why. Only six months ago, the reason most cited by the experts who believed the world was becoming more dangerous was anger and hostility among Muslims. Only one-third of the expert pool agreed with the administration's notion that Iraq has become the "central front on the war on terrorism," while two-thirds said they disagreed. That may help explain why two-thirds of the experts said they disagreed with Bush's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, but 69 percent said they favoured adding troops in Afghanistan. In the last six months, according to the survey, expert confidence about the situation in Afghanistan has fallen sharply, according to the survey. Indeed, asked to rate the relative strength of the Taliban in Afghanistan today compared to one year ago, a total of 83 percent of experts rated it either "somewhat" (57 percent) or "much stronger" (26 percent). The experts also rated Lebanon's Hezbollah and Palestine's Hamas as "much" and "somewhat" stronger, respectively, than a year ago. A large majority (72) percent said they believed that Islamist extremism was also growing in Western Europe. The experts also voiced strong concern about Pakistan. Asked to choose the country most likely to become the next stronghold of al Qaeda, Pakistan (30 percent) was rated second, just behind Somalia (34 percent, but that was before Ethiopia's recent military campaign there), and 91 percent of the experts said the U.S. must increase pressure on Pakistan to crackdown against Taliban and al Qaeda militants in tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Asked to identify the world's most dangerous government, 40 percent of the experts named Iran, while 35 percent cited North Korea, and nine percent -- including 14 percent of self-described conservatives -- identified the United States itself. At the same time, a plurality of 26 percent rated "a denuclearised Korean Peninsula" as the "most important policy objective" for Washington to achieve in the next five years. Seventeen percent identified a stable Iraq as the most important objective, and 12 percent named stopping Iran's nuclear programme. North Korea's status at the top of the list may be explained by the experts' assessment that Pyongyang was significantly more likely to transfer nuclear technology to terrorists than any other country, including the two most-often-cited countries, Pakistan and Iran. The experts voiced little confidence in Bush's ability to address the challenge posed by Tehran, with 73 percent voiding disapproval of his performance to date. That, too, was a significantly higher percentage than the general public's view. Last November, a plurality of 40 percent of respondents told Pew they approved of Bush's handling of Iran. Asked to rate the impact of 14 specific policies or actions by the administration, the experts cited the war in Iraq as the most negative by far, followed by the detention and treatment of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo and elsewhere, and U.S. positions during the recent conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. On the more positive side, experts said the administration had made real progress in stanching the flow of money to terrorist organisations around the world and the least progress in public diplomacy. Copyright © 2007 IPS-Inter Press Service

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Red Lights Flashing

Feds work to raise terror readiness

By KATHERINE SHRADER,

Associated Press WriterSa

t Jul 14, 1:02 PM ET

National security officials worry about a possible attack against the United States in the months ahead even though the government's leading terrorism experts have not found concrete information about an imminent strike.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff spoke this past week of his "gut feeling" that the nation faces an increased risk of attack this summer.

President Bush's instincts point in the same direction. "My head also tells me that al-Qaida's a serious threat to our homeland," he said at a news conference Thursday. "And we've got to continue making sure we've got good intelligence, good response mechanisms in place."

As early as this coming week, the administration is expected to release an unclassified version of a new National Intelligence Estimate — spy agencies' most authoritative type of appraisal — on al-Qaida's resurgence and the group's renewed efforts to sneak operatives into the United States.

A look at what the government says it is most worried about and what it is doing to thwart potential attacks:

TRANSPORTATION

Chertoff is asking people to be on watch for suspicious behavior or activities in transit systems or other public places. "When you see something, say something," he often says. That means picking up the phone to alert local authorities or federal law enforcement about anything out of the ordinary, such as a suspicious person, package or vehicle.

Just before the July 4 holiday, the Transportation Security Administration dispatched VIPR teams (Visible Intermodal Protection and Response) to airports and mass transit systems in Washington, Baltimore, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Houston, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

They include canine teams, agency officers trained in behavior observation, additional air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors and local police.

Federal air marshals already had bolstered their presence on domestic and international flights since last August, when international authorities foiled a plot to blow up about 10 U.S.-bound jetliners coming from London. That stepped-up presence continues today.

The department also sent out bulletins to state and local officials about routine steps they can take and new precautions after the largely botched car-bomb plot in Britain late last month.

Any more precautions expected this summer? "It can change at a moment's notice," said Chertoff's spokesman, Russ Knocke.

TREASURY

The Treasury Department is keeping close watch for fresh clues on sources of financing for terrorist groups. Yet counterterrorism officials say that attacks do not have to be expensive. The Sept. 11 Commission estimated the 2001 attacks cost $400,000 to $500,000.

"By exploiting financial intelligence, the Treasury can map terrorist networks and reveal who is sending money to al-Qaida, Hezbollah and like-minded terrorist groups," department spokeswoman Molly Millerwise said. "These efforts allow us to detect and disrupt the flow of finances to terrorists, making it harder and riskier for them to store and move money."

The Sept. 11 strikes in New York and Washington hit the country's financial nerve center and symbol of capitalism. Since then, regulations have been tightened to better guard the financial system against abuse from terrorist financiers and others.

ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES

These agencies report a high level of vigilance but few if any specific changes because of the latest worries.

With 4,000 law enforcement officers, the Interior Department says it is keeping busy. It is charged with protecting one of every five U.S. acres. "We ask our employees always to be vigilant," spokeswoman Tina Kreisher said.

The officers have bolstered security along borders, at sites such as the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall and the Washington Monument, and at national assets such as Bureau of Reclamation dams and the roads that lead to them.

The Environmental Protection Agency is the lead for hazardous materials response and works closely with industry. Under a government mandate, chemical makers are taking stock of chlorine, anhydrous ammonia (the basic ingredient for most nitrogen fertilizers) and other "chemicals of concern" that could — if stolen — cause damage by release or explosion.

ENERGY AND NUCLEAR

Nuclear power plants long have been viewed as a top target of terrorists and have tightened security since Sept. 11. But the latest concerns have not led to significant changes or alerts. "We are paying close attention to what the intelligence community is reporting and will act accordingly," Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Eliot Brenner said.

At the Energy Department, which oversees the government's nuclear weapons facilities, including its national research labs, security requirements have been revamped since 2001, especially in the protection of nuclear materials.

Thousands of miles of oil and natural gas pipelines as well as refineries also have been regarded as potential terrorist targets. But with no specific threat, the industry's response to the latest concerns has been simply to remain cautious.

AGRICULTURE

The Agriculture Department is most concerned about devastating animal or plant diseases that could be introduced intentionally into the United States. These include avian influenza and others that could move from animals to humans.

The department has worked with farmers and shippers to educate them on prevention against tampering, asking them to make sure supplies are locked, for example, and asking truckers never to leave shipments unattended.

The department also is working with veterinarians to make sure they are knowledgeable about exotic diseases that may appear in animals.

Other concerns include the misuse of agricultural pesticides and the entry of suspicious people through U.S. border farms, which often are expansive and largely unprotected.

FOOD AND DRUG

The Food and Drug Administration is helping foster the development and acquisition of vaccines, diagnostic tests and drugs that can be used against attacks including anthrax, botulism, radiological agents, smallpox and plague.

In a declared emergency, the FDA can authorize the use of unapproved medical products to diagnose, treat or prevent illnesses due to biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear attack. The agency has the authority to investigate the suspected tampering of the products it regulates — a list that includes drugs, vaccines, blood, medical devices and food.

With the FBI and the Agriculture and Homeland Security departments, the FDA has begun assessing various foods — from a list of roughly 30 — to determine their vulnerability to attack at various points in the production process. In 2005-06, for instance, the FDA visited yogurt, baby food, bagged salad and other producers.

The FDA considers foods processed in large batch sizes, or ingredients subsequently mixed with large amounts of product, the most vulnerable to terrorism.

DEFENSE

There has been no overall change in protection measures for domestic military installations. Individual commanders have authority to increase inspections or patrols when necessary. Checks of traffic going into some Washington-area bases have gotten more rigorous this summer, for example.

Basic security at military installations has been at the next-to-lowest level for more than four years. Protective measures added in recent years include entry barriers, road closures, surveillance cameras and armed guards, and programs to encourage service members and their families to report signs of possible terrorist planning.

Military bases are acknowledged to be vulnerable, particularly those close to urban areas and civilian roadways. Naval bases have the added problem of securing waterfronts and surrounding waterways.

_____

Associated Press writers Jeannine Aversa, John Heilprin, H. Josef Hebert, Mary Clare Jalonick, Andrew Bridges and Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

How Many Lives Were Lost By Outing Plame?

Outing Valerie Plame aided our enemies

By Bob Ewegen
Denver Post Columnist

Article Last Updated: 07/06/2007 09:57:24 PM MDT

After 44 years in journalism, I don't get angry very often about the dirty tricks that so often besmirch the American political process.

But I am angry about the Valerie Plame affair, a sordid tale that flared anew this week when President George Bush commuted the prison sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

I am not angry at the commutation or the pettifogging partisan exchanges it spawned. I am angry at the underlying event - the fact that an American patriot whose only crime was to serve her country in a dangerous and honorable profession had her mission undercut for partisan political purposes.

I am even angrier that the vicious "outing" of Valerie Plame put her sources at risk - the men and women in foreign countries who had risked their own lives to help America in our war on terror.

In the intelligence trade, such foreign sources are called "assets." I call them heroes. And they are the ones who were put most at risk after columnist Robert Novak revealed Plame's CIA connection as part of a clumsy Bush administration effort to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had become a critic of the Iraq war.

To explain why this case angers me so deeply, let me give you a number: RA68031300. It identifies me as a Vietnam-era veteran of the United States Army. After enlisting, I took basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., where I received orders sending me to Fort Sill, Okla., for training in artillery, after which I expected to be sent to Vietnam.

Because someone in the Pentagon noticed I had worked for United Press International, I was called out on my last day of basic and redirected to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. I ultimately became editor of the post newspaper, the Pointer View.

So in the end, my personal risk in my military career was limited to some really awful haircuts. But the names of 58,000 of my comrades engraved on a wall in Washington, D.C., prove that my story could have ended differently. Those names also explain why I will never forgive anyone who willfully puts the lives of America's military or intelligence personnel or our friends abroad in danger.

And that's exactly what former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage did when he leaked Plame's identity to Novak - and what Novak did when he published the name of a covert CIA agent.

Between Armitage's dishonorable act and Novak's dishonorable act were a string of other dishonorable acts, including an executive order by President Bush empowering Vice President Cheney to declassify classified information, which Cheney did, thus allowing Libby to shop Plame's identity around in hopes of finding a journalist willing to smear Wilson through his wife. With Libby's information confirming Armitage's original tip, Novak willingly blew Plame's cover.

In so doing, he didn't put Plame at personal risk, because she was not overseas at the time. But he did irrevocably damage her mission - and put those human "assets" at risk.

You see, al-Qaeda and its ilk rarely try to kill CIA agents - or anyone else who can fight back. What these cowards do is kill people who have worked with U.S. agents.

You can imagine the conversation: "Hmm, that Valerie Plame who visited here turns out to be a CIA agent. Didn't she hang out at Hamid's coffee shop a lot?"

Next day, Hamid's body turns up, along with the bodies of his wife and family, all of whom were tortured to death before his eyes.

That's the way our enemies play the game. That's why we train brave men and women like Valerie Plame so America can fight back.

The outing of Plame may have been technically legal, as the commutation of Libby's sentence undoubtedly was. But our supreme law, the U.S. Constitution, still defines treason as giving aid and comfort to our enemies in time of war.

And in this aging veteran's eyes, that's exactly what Armitage, Cheney, Libby and Novak did.

Bob Ewegen (bewegen@denverpost.com) is deputy editorial page editor of The Denver Post.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Waxman "Threatens" Subpoenas?

Threatens?

WTF?

Issue the damn things! We don't have forever!

Waxman Reveals Numerous New Security Violations, Threatens Subpoenas

House oversight chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has revealed new evidence “that both the White House and the Office of the Vice President have flaunted multiple requirements for protecting classified information,” beyond the violation of the executive order reported earlier this week.

Last Friday, White House spokesperson Dana Perino stated that the “president and the vice president are complying with all the rules and regulations regarding the handling of classified material.” This is false. As Waxman makes clear in today’s letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, the Bush administration has repeatedly broken its own guidelines for securing classified information:

White House security officers blocked from inspecting the West Wing. The National Archives is not the only agency ensuring that White House officials comply with the requirements for protecting classified information. The White House Security Office (WHSO) also shares this responsibility. Waxman reports today that WHSO employees “have been blocked from conducting inspections in the West Wing of the White House, where most of the President’s most senior advisors work.”

Karl Rove has had his security clearance renewed. Karl Rove has admitted that he publicly disclosed Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA officer. Under guidelines issued by President Bush in 2005, the “deliberate or negligent disclosure” of classified information can be a “disqualifying” condition to receive security clearance. Yet Waxman reports that Rove has had his security clearance renewed “and not altered in any respect.”

White House ignored security breaches, condoned mismanagement. Management at White House Security Office has been unwilling to “take actions that could embarrass White House officials,” a practice “condoned” by the White House, Waxman writes. For example, the office repeatedly ignored security breaches that were reported by the Secret Service or CIA agents, such as when a “White House official left classified materials unattended in a hotel room.” As a result, there was “plummeting morale among White House security officers,” half of whom quit last year.

Since April, Waxman has tried unsuccessfully to arrange interviews with White House officials overseeing security matters. Unless those interviews are granted, Waxman says, he will bring a motion to subpoena the officials on June 28.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Oh, fer Chissake! What is it going to take?

Feb 27, 8:15 PM EST

Labor language threatens antiterror bill

By LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press Writer
AP Photo/CHARLES DHARAPAK


WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush and his Senate allies will kill a Sept. 11 antiterror bill if Congress sends it to the White House with a provision to let airport screeners unionize, the White House and 36 Republicans said Tuesday.

"As the legislation currently stands, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

Senate Republicans swiftly backed up the threat with a pledge by more than enough senators to block any veto override attempt.

"If the final bill contains such a provision, forcing you to veto it, we pledge to sustain your veto," they wrote to the president. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., planned to offer an amendment to strip the provision from the bill.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that allowing screeners to unionize would impede the department's quick response to possible threats. Fast redeployment of screeners, such as in response to Hurricane Rita and the failed London plot to blow up airliners, cannot wait for negotiations, he said.

Chertoff said screeners are as much on the front lines in the war against terror as military troops.

"Marines don't collectively bargain over whether they're going to wind up, you know, being deployed in Anbar province or in Baghdad," Chertoff told reporters after a briefing with senators. "We can't negotiate over terms and conditions of work that goes to the heart of our ability to move rapidly in order to deal with the threats that are emerging."

Other federal employees have collective bargaining and whistle-blower protection rights.
Chertoff's reasoning, according to the American Federation of Government Employees, is "an insult to the hundreds of thousands of dedicated public safety officers with collective bargaining rights - from border patrol agents to firefighters to the Capitol Hill police," said John Gage, president of the federation.

The White House made its displeasure with the union provision clear before the House passed it as part of its Homeland Security bill. Sen. Susan Collins said Chertoff told her that a statement Thursday would include an explicit veto threat.

Casting the provision as a deal-killer would flex Bush's political muscle with the new, Democratic-led Congress on the old battleground of labor rights. It also could throw an obstacle into talks over how to debate and pass the recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission.
For now, senators are eager to follow the House and pass a bill enacting the commission's recommendations to tighten the nation's security. The House bill also includes a provision that would let TSA screeners bargain collectively.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had reached a tentative agreement Tuesday to conduct the debate over the next 10 days without the distraction of Iraq.

The sense of urgency on the 9/11 recommendations was conveyed to both leaders in a letter Tuesday from families of those killed in the terrorist attacks on that day in 2001.

"This legislation is far too important to be politicized by ... controversial amendments and debate, particularly those relating to Iraq," wrote Carol Ashley and Mary Fetchet of the Voices of September 11th.

Reid and McConnell said the Iraq debate would wait for next month, after passage of the 9/11 bill. The arrangement would allow the Senate to debate legislation bolstering anti-terrorism security measures on railroads and airlines without being distracted by the furor over President Bush's buildup of troops in Iraq.

"We have got to finish this bill," Reid, D-Nev., said as he opened the Senate session. He read parts of a letter from relatives of people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks asking the Senate to consider the legislation "without complications regarding Iraq."

Even minus an Iraq debate, provisions in the anti-terrorism bill or planned amendments make the legislation contentious.

In addition to its opposition to the TSA provision, the White House also opposes an amendment that would let states delay adopting standardized drivers' licenses.

Collins said Chertoff delivered a staunch defense of the administration's position during the GOP caucus' weekly policy lunch Tuesday. She said she nonetheless plans to try to attach an amendment that would delay requirements for states to adopt national drivers license standards.

Many states have complained about the cost of the program, and civil libertarians are concerned about privacy issues.

Other measures in the bill would improve rail and aviation security, provide funds for state and local emergency communications systems, improve intelligence sharing between federal, state and local officials, and expand a visa waiver benefit for favored countries.
---
The bill is S.4

On the Net:
Transportation Security Administration: http://www.tsa.gov/
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.