Finally, portraits of the airline hijackers from Sept. 11. What do you see when you look at those faces? Suicidal terrorists? I wonder, how can another reasonable human being do such things? If I had lunch with one of these people, would I come away thinking that he could fly a plane into a building?

A very good article by Malcolm Gladwell, who wrote The Tipping Point, a great book. This article discusses airline safety and why increased security will only lead to more severe acts of terrorism. Not the most comforting thought, but he does suggest some sensible measures which the FAA should consider. Read it quickly, while it's still posted for free by The New Yorker. I look forward to Gladwell's articles in the New Yorker. I'm not sure how to describe his work. It's a statistically informed analysis of social phenomena. If you have thoughts on how to make flights safer, and most people seem to, you should really read this article.

The airport was much more empty than usual. No cars out front. Just lots of empty police cars. I didn't find the security measures to be much more stringent than normal. Just slower. I got to the airport 2 hours early, got to the gate with over an hour to spare, and sat around for a long time. It felt more lonely at the airport. Yes you will likely have more room on the flight. Lots of empty seats to be had. Still, you can't help feeling like one of the condemned, or the foolish, sitting alone with your airline meal and your in-flight magazine.

Maybe this will be the impetus for the U.S. to build a light rail system, like the ones in Europe. Why would you even take a flight between cities like Portland and Seattle, or Los Angeles in San Francisco, if you had to get to the airport two hours ahead of your flight? The consequences of hijacking a train, confined as it is to its rails, are much less frightening than those resulting from a hijacked airplane. Airlines could cut down on the short commuter type flights and focus on filling long distance flights, narrowing their business model complexity and perhaps increasing their profits as a results. Flying is just such a hassle now, and it's only getting worse.

I wrote a bit on the flight over to Chicago. It's been a while, but it felt good to feel the words flowing a bit. In uncomfortable times, the ability to create feels like a gesture of hope.

posted by Eugene Wei at 10:25 PM | link

On the flight to Chicago, which was less than half full, we were given plastic utensils with our meal.
posted by Eugene Wei at 10:00 PM | link

Last stop on the wedding circuit. Joannie's birthday. A trip backhome to Chicago for the weekend. I haven't been back in ages. Tickets to some Cubs games, but they're pretty much out of it. Is anything in the world more hopeless and ridiculous than being a Cubs fan? The Cubs compete with women as the primary source of heartbreak in my life. Someday I'll have to buy them and turn them into a winner.

Interesting article about power laws and how decentralized, distributed systems will always lead to very uneven distributions. Thus, we will always have some big cities, a few big websites, hit songs, etc. The idea that the Internet would destroy the idea of a bestseller, or that digital distribution will destroy the concept of a blockbuster movie? Just myths.

On a separate note, the weather in Seattle is truly depressing me, and I feel this sudden draw to New York. After all, if it really sucked there, it wouldn't be the most populous city in the world, would it? More people moved there than moved out over the years, so something must be keeping them there. Still, why is everyone there so rude?

Michael Jordan is coming back. A lot of folks have asked me what I think, since I'm from Chicago and I'm a big Jordan fan. I would love to see him succeed. I wouldn't say that of too many sports stars that have left Chicago. We all want heroes to believe in, and for many years he was the closest thing to it. He just never really failed. When he came back the first time and the Bulls lost to Orlando in the playoffs, it felt like that scene in Superman II when Clark Kent confronts a bully in a diner and gets beat up because he has given up his powers to be human (to be with Lois; this brings up an interesting discussion of how movies always portray women as emasculating influences, but it's one for another day). Happily, as in Superman II, Jordan worked out like a fiend and came back to win the next 3 NBA Championships and scoring titles.

I just watched 3 Days of the Condor last night, and there they were, the World Trade Center towers, in a closeup shot. A strange coincidence. Good movie by the way. All this work to go back and edit movies to remove World Trade Center shots strikes me as a bit odd. Supposedly it's to avoid the subject, but is anyone really going to forget? Canceling movies related to terrorism makes more sense to me. I can't imagine many terroristmovies being more unbelievable than what just happened.

In times of crisis, we revert to our laziest judgments. Thus we distrust anyone who looks like an Arab American, or we cry out for greater government surveillance. The sign of a lousy security system is having to watch over everyone in it. Perhaps it will make us all feel better. Sure, we may not see another plane hijacked by box cutters. That's the least of my concern now. Sure, we can plug the holes that have been gushing water. Where's the next hole? The hijackings in the old days were, it is strange to say it, much more palatable than those after we established x-ray machines and their like. It is a sad truth, that over time, as security and countermeasures rise, so does the severity of the violence it counters. War in the old days was men fighting with swords, and today it is nuclear weapons. Terrorism is following the same path. The 21st century may be a dark one. What can we do to head off biological warfare, or something even more horrendous? The world is not as happy a place as it used to be.

Strange how the presence of commercials on TV reassures me that things are okay.

I'm tired. I'm speaking and thinking at a very shallow level right now.
posted by Eugene Wei at 11:12 AM | link

The Iron Bridge

by Billy Collins (the new U.S. poet laureate)

I am standing on a disused iron bridge
that was erected in 1902
according to the iron plaque bolted into a beam,
the year my mother turned one.
Imagine—a mother in her infancy,
and she was a Canadian infant at that,
one of the great infants of the province of Ontario.

But here I am leaning on the rusted railing
looking at the water below,
which is flat and reflective this morning,
sky-blue and streaked with high clouds,
and the more I look at the water,
which is like a talking picture,
the more I think of 1902
when workmen in shirts and caps
riveted this iron bridge together
across a thin channel joining two lakes
where wildflowers now blow along the shore
and pairs of swans float in the leafy coves.

1902—my mother was so tiny
she could have fit into one of those oval
baskets for holding apples,
which her mother could have lined with a soft cloth
and placed on the kitchen table
so she could keep an eye on infant Katherine
while she scrubbed potatoes or shelled a bag of peas,

the way I am keeping an eye on that cormorant
who just broke the glassy surface
and is moving away from me and the bridge,
swiveling his curious head,
slipping out to where the sun rakes the water
and filters through the trees that crowd the shore.

And now he dives,
disappears below the surface,
and while I wait for him to pop up,
I picture him flying underwater with his strange wings,

as I picture you, my tiny mother,
who disappeared last year,
flying somewhere with your strange wings,
your wide eyes, and your heavy wet dress,
kicking deeper down into a lake
with no end or name, some boundless province of water.


From Poems.com
posted by Eugene Wei at 12:04 AM | link

The new trailer for Lord of the Rings is up today at Apple's Quicktime site. And, joy of joys, it's downloadable.
posted by Eugene Wei at 11:28 AM | link

Pace

I am the slowest runner I know. I went for a run today, for about 6
miles, keeping with Dave's marathon training calendar. I realized
that what slows me down is the various sharp pains in my knees
and ankles when I run quickly on hard pavement. My lungs are fine,
but my joints and feet fail me. The only way I can cover long
distances is slowly, and even now, the bottoms of my feet ache.
I am no gazelle.

Today I will finally finish The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and
Clay.
posted by Eugene Wei at 10:15 PM | link

On our minds

From Google Zeitgeist:
Top 10 Gaining Queries
Week Ending Sept. 17, 2001

1. nostradamus


2. cnn


3. world trade center


4. osama bin laden


5. taliban


6. american flag


7. fbi


8. pentagon


9. american airlines


10. american red cross

posted by Eugene Wei at 7:53 PM | link

Drunk on the happiness of others. Basking in the glow, they call it. Got back from Todd and Juli's wedding this afternoon. Had a great time. Having been to so many weddings this month, I've realized that when two people get married, they pull this cone of happiness behind them as they burrow into the future with hands clasped. And all of us, family and friends, are sucked into this whirling pool of joy and memory and good wishes. It was the perfect way to pull me out of post Sept 11 depression.

Among other things, the whole weekend allowed me to get to know some folks I'd either met only a few times or not at all. Aaron, Mark, Eric. Jen, Sidney (Sydney--spelling, Juli?), Tina, Denise, the other Mark, Doug and Isil, Joel and Barbara, and lots of others. Good people. I got to know Bellingham, a charming town up north in Washington. We stayed at the Chrysalis Inn, a very plush hotel along the water.

One moment in particular will stay with me. The day of the wedding, in the early afternoon, I found the two of them huddled together in the hallway outside our room, the day of the wedding, making last minute plans. Answering questions like "How should we be introduced?" I realized then, they're probably two of the only folks I know who could pull off a wedding in such a short time and be completely comfortable with all their arrangements. Juli has an impulsive streak, and Todd is a fast mover, especially armed with the Internet. We might bounce around the idea of entering a race, and 5 minutes later Todd will send e-mail saying he has registered. A few hours before we were due at the manor, they were nailing down last minute issues like a team. I thought to myself that this was how the whole event happened, just the two of them talking, figuring it all out, making decisions. I imagine they will work together in the same way as husband and wife.

From time to time, I'd look over at Todd, and I could see that he was ready.

Both brides I've witnessed this month are awesome camera subjects. Very expressive and photogenic. Many people are not physically emotive. Not that you have to be good looking, but at least interesting and physically honest, open. It's one reason celebrities make good subjects for photographers. They're accustomed to being scrutinized by the camera's eye, and they either remain natural in its gaze or play to it. Actually, both Todd and Juli were great camera subjects. I can't wait to get my few rolls of film back. Both are very comfortable with cameras on them. No poses, no cringing. I love people like that. Juli is the type of girl that even other girls describe as "gorgeous," which is like winning an award from your peers as opposed to some third party.

As a groomsmen, I actually didn't have too much to do. Todd was all over the details. I really felt like a bodyguard for Todd and Juli.

Juli, someday many years from now, I imagine I'll be sitting in a cafe (let's say Paris) with you and Todd, having a drink, sharing some laughs, and reminiscing about old times. And I'll tell you the story of the time a long time ago when Todd and I were driving somewhere, and I asked him if he found any girls at work interesting (because it was a long drive, and this is one of those subjects that comes up from time to time in the company of single men) and he said, I met this girl in orientation, and she just has the greatest smile.

Congratulations.
posted by Eugene Wei at 9:04 PM | link

Verbal tic

Dubya has a verbal tic. When he wants to sound tough.

"Make no mistake about it."

He needs to switch off that, give us a bit of variety.
posted by Eugene Wei at 8:58 AM | link

The photo lab finally found my negatives. Phew. Posted a few early shots from Kristin's wedding.

Ran after work today, and my left shin was throbbing. I realized that I hate running. It's painful, unpleasant work. I like the idea of running, the fitness it provides, the physical effort it requires--but running itself gives me little pleasure. I am a lousy runner, to boot. The good thing is it helps me to sleep better. Yesterday I was out cold.

Watched Keeping the Faith on cable. I've got to admit, I'm a sucker for romance films set in New York. It's why I will definitely go see Serendipity. I must try it someday, the whole falling in love in New York City thing. Anyway, Keeping the Faith did not offer any insights into religion, but it handled the two guys in love with the same girl love triangle very well. Me? Yes, I'm the Ed Norton character. Sucker.


posted by Eugene Wei at 11:15 PM | link

Despite lots of flight schedule manipulation and waiting, I never made it out Friday to Rob's wedding. I kept swinging emotionally, from wanting to go no matter what just to prove a point, I'm not sure what, to wanting to stay home and seeth. I feel for Rob, who planned the wedding so far in advance and now won't be able to share it with so many of his friends and family.

I feel quite helpless. I want to be on the front lines, chasing down these killers. Bill and I were out at sushi tonight, and we both decided to check out the CIA to see if we could secure employment as top analysts. Wouldn't be much fun to be some entry-level grunt, but would be great to recruit some top-notch programmers and engineers and develop ways to infiltrate these terrorist organizations and expose their plans.

Religious fanaticism scares me.

Being stuck here in Seattle was not ideal, as the events of this week have left me with a craving for the company of friends, lots of them. Thankfully a few people were available for my last-minute plans. Went running with Dave, Jeff, Anthony, and new Seattle-ites Mandy and Clay this morning. It made me realize how much I dislike running, how painful it is, and how out of shape I am. Then Le Bean and I checked out a photography exhibit at the Frye Art Museum.
posted by Eugene Wei at 12:31 AM | link

A profile of Osama bin Laden from the Jan 24, 2000 issue of The New Yorker.

I wanted to post some happy pictures for a change, from Greg and Kristin's wedding. Unfortunately, I realized the photo studio gave me the right contact sheet but the wrong negatives. Sigh. I had some good shots, too.

Supposed to hop a flight to Atlanta tomorrow. It's looking doubtful. Poor Rob. Supposed to be the happiest weekend of his life, and now so many won't make it out to his wedding.
posted by Eugene Wei at 1:07 AM | link

The covers of the special editions of Time Magazine and Newsweek both depict the two World Trade Centers, spewing fire.

As Kakutani stated in this article in the New York Times:
"It may seem trivializing — even obscene — to talk about movies in the same breath as this week's tragedy, but the fact that so many people did was a symptom of our inability to get our minds around this disaster, our inability to find real-life precedents, real-life analogies for what happened in the morning hours of Sept. 11."
posted by Eugene Wei at 12:38 AM | link

I felt better at work today. Distracted perhaps.

Then I came home and went for a run. When I returned, I turned the TV back on and browsed the web for the latest news. And as various individuals began recounting their personal stories of family members they had not heard from, and cameras observed people who kept a candlelight vigil at the reflecting pool in Washington D.C., I felt a deep sorrow again.

I was glad to see images tonight of Palestinians who brought flowers and stood outside the U.S. Embassy in a show of sympathy. The images yesterday of Palestinians celebrating the attack on the U.S. were unfair, one-sided. It reminded me how easy it is to search for black and white, for a reason behind these tragedies. For now, the only absolute we know is that the people who coordinated and perpetrated these crimes against innocent people are evil. Let's hope the hand of justice comes down on them with righteous anger. Those who urge that we expel Arab Americans from our country, who desocrate mosques and vandalize Islamic offices, these idiots remind us of the ignorance that led to this attack in the first place.

We also know that hundreds of firemen gave their lives by dashing into a building they knew would likely collapse on top of them. We know, perhaps, that citizens on flight 93, knowing they were going to die, decided to attack the hijackers to prevent them from using the plane as a weapon against their fellow citizens. Jeremy Glick called his wife, who informed him that other planes had hit the World Trade Center. At that point, he dropped the phone, and when he returned, he said that the male passengers had decided to attack the hijackers to try and take back the plane.

I understand now how people felt when they volunteered for the war in 1941. The feeling of wanting to drop everything around you to go to war, to protect the ones you love. I wish I was an FBI agent, helping to hunt down these murderers.

Officials suspect two of the hijackers may have studied at this flight school in Florida.

As of 11pm today, Amazon had collected over $1.8 million from nearly 58,000 individual contributions.

Perhaps an indication of how much people are grasping for answers, the Amazon.com books topseller list and video topseller list are filled with works about Nostradamus, the prophet. When I think about how many people must be buying these books to push them so far up the top seller lists, I had to wonder. How did so many people suddenly decide that they might find insight in Nostradamus? Curious, I scoured the web.

I found that this quatrain was spreading throughout the web in the wake of the World Trade Center catastrophes:
"In the City of God there will be a great thunder,
two brothers torn apart by chaos,
while the fortress endures, the great leader will sucumb.
The third big war will begin when the big city is burning."

Hmm, doesn't seem like a very accurate prediction to me.

Oh, that unfortunate album cover by The Coup that I wrote about earlier? Fortunately, the album had not yet been released, and the label is going back to redo the cover.

So many moving images. At the United Nations, when a vote was taken on whether or not to support the United States in its efforts to find the terrorists responsible for this tragedy, instead of raising their hands to signify their agreement, all the delegates stood. Citizens holding flags out the window as they drive.

Everytime I see them replay the image of the airplane flying head on into the World Trade Center, I cringe. I've seen it probably nearly a hundred times by now, and it is still the most horrific thing I've ever seen. It is a thousand times more emotionally awe-inspiring than any manufactured image in a Hollywood film. I will remember it all my life.

I can't find the stomach to watch any TV, to watch a movie. I may not watch a movie for weeks. I can't fathom reading any fiction. The coverage on TV and in print and on the web has transfixed me. I can't remember a time when I watched more television--hour after hour. I feel guilty for watching the footage again and again. What would it have been like to stand there in the streets of NYC and watch the World Trade Center collapse in on itself as if the earth had swallowed it? I feel like a voyeur.

I fear that nothing our government does will provide us with that cathartic release we all yearn for. Those who most deserve to be punished died in the plane crashes. Unless countries around the world band together and force the terrorists living among them to go on the run, we may never capture all the guilty parties.

In the New York Times, Michiko Kakutani recalled a quote from Philip Roth in 1961:
"The American writer in the middle of the 20th century has his hands full in trying to understand, describe and then make credible much of American reality. It stupefies, it sickens, it infuriates, and finally it is even a kind of embarrassment to one's own meager imagination. The actuality is continually outdoing our talents, and the culture tosses up figures almost daily that are the envy of any novelist."

Kakutani also points out some recent works of fiction, many from Hollywood, which have depicted acts of terrorism involving bombs and airplanes:

For the most part, however, large- scale terrorist plots and huge public disasters — so sensationalist in tone, seemingly so far removed from our daily reality — have remained the province of commercial screenwriters and novelists like Tom Clancy, whose 1994 novel, "Debt of Honor," featured a plot in which a Boeing 747 is crashed by a Japanese airman into the Capitol building during a joint session of Congress, killing virtually everyone. The Sylvester Stallone movie Daylight postulated a disastrous explosion in the Holland Tunnel; Die Hard 2 showed terrorists taking over the air control system at Dulles Airport and crashing an airplane; and Black Sunday depicted an extremist group planning to blow up the Superbowl with explosives loaded on a blimp. Executive Decision depicted Arab terrorists armed with a nerve-gas bomb who take control of a 747 and head for Washington.
posted by Eugene Wei at 11:01 PM | link

It's incredible, Amazon has now collected over $580,000 for the Red Cross. That's in just over 12 hours.

Found this in an article at the Chicago Tribune:
"Once on a plane, access to the cockpit is not as difficult as some passengers may think. Cockpit doors in U.S. jetliners are designed to be easily broken down in case a pilot is incapacitated or there is other emergency.

"It has to be unjammable and it has to be able to be opened from both inside and outside the cockpit in case the flight crew became unconscious," said Mary Jean Olsen, a spokeswoman for Boeing Co.

What this means, as American Airlines Capt. Bruce Killips noted, is that "just about anybody intent on getting into the cockpit could."

George Bush's first speech last night did not impress me. His demeanor was not comforting--he seemed worn, timid, a bit distraught. A president needs to express sorrow but also strength in a situation like that. This morning he seemed stronger. Still, he lacks a commanding presence when he speaks. I can feel his grief, but I also want him to stand tall, to fill the shoes he fought to wear.
posted by Eugene Wei at 10:39 AM | link

Flight plans of the four planes.

Here's an animated drawing of the flight paths of the four planes which hit the World Trade Center towers.
posted by Eugene Wei at 1:07 AM | link

The FBI has established a toll-free telephone number for anyone with information regarding the incidents on September 11 in New York City and the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Please call 1-866-483-5137 with any information. A form has also been placed on the Internet at www.ifccfbi.gov to report information. Visit the FBI's press release section for recent press releases about these events.
posted by Eugene Wei at 1:05 AM | link

Cached page with info on Osama bin Laden.
posted by Eugene Wei at 1:02 AM | link

An interview with Osama bin Laden from 1999.
posted by Eugene Wei at 12:37 AM | link

Lots of excellent articles at Salon.com. Here's an interview with Michele Zanini, a security expert who makes some interesting recommendations about how the U.S. should fight these terrorists.

Some books which are rising the charts at Amazon.com in the wake of this disaster:
Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center
The New Jackals: Ramzi Yousef, Osama Bin Laden and the Future of Terrorism

This article at Yahoo indicates that names of suspected terrorists with ties to bin Laden were found on passenger rosters of the hijacked planes. But no name was given, just "a government source."

Another analysis of why the buildings collapsed, noting that the terrorists hit the buildings in the perfect spots. Any higher, or much lower, and the buildings would have likely survived.

In many ways, the people who built those two towers, and the buildings themselves, are heroes. The buildings held up long enough that many people could escape. This despite being hit by a massive 200 ton commercial plan. Then, when the buildings finally fell, they collapsed inward instead of toppling over onto surrounding blocks.
posted by Eugene Wei at 11:48 PM | link

James and Jeff are safe in New York. So is Rich. Relief.

Sharon reports that while people crossed the Brooklyn Bridge on foot, several robbed her dad's Dunkin Donuts store. Sick to think people would take advantage of a situation like that to do some looting.

It appears that some people on the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania may have realized what was happening and
helped to crash the airplane far from the terrorists' intended target in Washington, D.C. It's amazing to hear about some of the individual heroism that occurred all day.

Fascinating to read some of the coverage of the event in international papers, many of which are linked here.

posted by Eugene Wei at 11:24 PM | link

It's the most horrifying event I've witnessed in my lifetime. I still can't sleep, can't turn off the television. The personal
tragedies, stories from specific individuals, are starting to filter out, and these stories only heighten the sense of tragedy.

The terrorists must be looking at all this coverage, the panic on people's faces, and feeling victorious. Other than the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, it appears their plans have succeeded in every way.

More from around the web:

The Boston Herald reports five men have been identified as suspects. Their rental car contained air flight training manuals. The article contains a lot more info about what went on inside some of the airplanes.

Henry Kissinger recommends Destroy the Network

An analysis of possible suspects and motives in Jane's Intelligence Digest. They identify likely suspects as:

• Osama bin Laden and Al-Qa'eda ("the Base")


• The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)


• Saddam Hussein

Contribute to the Red Cross--Amazon.com is waiving its usual fees, and already the Red Cross has received over $170,000 to aid in its efforts to help those in New York and Washington, D.C. Every time I hit refresh the total rises by several thousand. It's a heartwarming thing to witness.

A good article about why the WTC towers collapsed.
posted by Eugene Wei at 11:19 PM | link

I've been fighting back tears all day. That's not normal for me. But then I see things lik this image of a person who jumped or was thrown from tens of stories in the air, from the World Trade Center, to his or her death, and my heart cramps--I want vengeance.

Can you fight a terrorist without being one yourself? They say terrorism is the tactic of the weak. What, then, is the method of the strong?

We clearly have much to learn when an event like this can inspire some in the world to celebrate.

The moral dilemna played out: if you knew that one of those airplanes was headed for the White House, or the World
Trade Center, would you shoot it down? Was that what happened to the United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania?

A survey of coverage from around the web:

Transcript of George Bush's speech

The most popular news outlets:NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post

Some non-conventional news outlets: Stratfor, Slashdot, Wired, CNET

Interesting interview with terrorism expert Jim Walsh.

The most horrific footageof the second plane crash--shows the plane hitting the building head on.

Barbara Olson was aboard the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. She and other passengers were ordered to phone their relatives to inform them they were about to die. Olson was not even supposed to be on that flight, but it was her husband's birthday today and she wanted to be there to have breakfast with him in the morning. As mentioned in the article, flight attendants know not to allow anyone in the cockpit in the event of a highjacking. We may never know what happened on those planes.

CTO of Akamai was killed in the Boston to Los Angeles American Airlines flight that hit the World Trade Center.

Companies occupying Tower 1 of the World Trade Center
Companies occupying Tower 2 of the World Trade Center

US Government strongly suspects Osana bin Laden. In this same article, a dropdown box halfway down the page includes details of many failed acts of terrorism by Osana bin Laden. Even if it turns out it wasn't bin Laden, his image has been branded in the public image, and it will be hard for him to continue to evade capture.

A comprehensive compilation of images, including one of George
Bush being informed of the incident as he read to a class of 2nd graders in Florida.

Colin Powell: "A great, great tragedy has befallen my nation..."

An explanation of airport security at How Stuff Works.

A more skeptical view of airport security at Cryptome.

An odd and disturbing coincidence--this album cover by the hip hop band The Coup pictures the WTC Towers exploding in similar locations to today's tragedy.

In July, the New Yorker published an article by Jeffrey Goldberg titled The Martyr Strategy: What Does the New Phase of Terrorism Signify? Various transcripts of the article have been posted all over the web.

Comdisco flooded with calls about IT disasters.

Some are reporting that gas prices have skyrocketed.

Some thoughts from engineers on Slashdot about why the WTC towers collapsed.

Even X10 suspended its pop-under ads.
posted by Eugene Wei at 6:50 PM | link

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By J. Michael Waller
mwaller@InsightMag.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A national terrorism-response plan is due in October. But America’s whole information infrastructure on which the modern U.S. economy is based now is vulnerable to attack.

Pearl Harbor probably will happen again. Only this time the attacks won’t be in far-off Hawaii but against the American mainland. That’s what some of the nation’s top experts are saying as the national-security community scrambles to ward off attempts to attack the U.S. homeland with terrorist weapons of mass destruction and crippling raids on public- and private-sector information systems on which the entire economy — and the American way of life — depend.

Geopolitical and technological changes after the collapse of the Soviet Union are forcing U.S. national security to stand on its head — and with good reason. The decline of Cold War alliances, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the near-total vulnerability of the U.S. economic system to attack are forcing American policymakers to rethink the basics of the country’s defense and security.

For the first time since the Japanese fleet bombed Pearl Harbor nearly 60 years ago, the United States is fully vulnerable to attacks it cannot deter or easily prevent, Pentagon experts tell Insight. The missile age brought with it the threat of massive retaliation against a potential attacker, perversely keeping the peace under the doctrine of “mutually assured destruction,” known as MAD. Not any more.

Proliferation of missile technology soon will place delivery systems capable of striking the U.S. mainland in the hands of any regime or fanatical group that can afford them. Even more chilling is the prospect of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons being smuggled into the United States and detonated against civilian targets anonymously, causing horrific destruction and carnage yet leaving Washington helpless to respond.

President George W. Bush underscored his concern in a May 8 statement: “The threat of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons being used against the United States — while not immediate — is very real.”

The first responders on tomorrow’s battlefield won’t be soldiers, but city ambulance workers and small-town firefighters. Federal authorities only now are coming to grips with the terrorist threat of a nuclear blast, a radiation bomb, blister agents, nerve gases and germ weapons released in U.S. cities and towns. State and local officials tell Insight they have little or no means of coping with the threat before it occurs, or dealing with it after a terrorist strikes.

And then there’s the “electronic Pearl Harbor,” a phrase coined by Richard Clarke, President Clinton’s national coordinator for security, infrastructure protection and counter-terrorism. An electronic Pearl Harbor would be a surprise attack on the country’s fragile information systems that keep the economy and society running.

America’s miraculous digital revolution — automatic teller machines and wireless phones, personal computers and pagers, and the electronic systems that carry news, airline schedules, stock trades and business inventories — have transformed the way people live. But the entire network, which bureaucrats call “the critical infrastructure,” is a massive electronic Achilles’ heel, security specialists warn. A single swipe could bring everything down (see “U.S. Threatened With EMP Attack,” May 28).

International terrorists and rogue regimes are savoring the prospect of striking hard at the United States, according to U.S. intelligence agencies. During his recent tour of the Middle East, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro remarked to his Iranian hosts that the United States was plagued with vulnerabilities that smaller countries could exploit. He didn’t elaborate in public, but his message was clear: The time is coming when the rogues of the world will be able to take down Uncle Sam.

With Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ripping apart obsolete defense doctrines to keep the United States on the cutting edge of world leadership, others, with a much lower profile, are working on a more fundamental issue: homeland security.

After years of dithering under Clinton, say defense specialists, the Bush White House is taking the matter seriously. “Virtually every vital service: water supplies, transportation, energy, banking and finance, telecommunications, public health — all of these rely on computer and fiber-optic lines, the switches and routers that come from them,” notes National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. These are vulnerable. In the short time since his inauguration in January, Bush has instructed government offices to coordinate for homeland security and defense, and assigned Vice President Richard Cheney to head a group to draft a national terrorism-response plan by October 1.

It took a while for America’s leaders even to begin to pay attention to this issue. Not until 1997 did a U.S. government document even recognize the modern concept of homeland defense, when a report by the National Defense Panel, a Pentagon study group, argued that the American civilian population increasingly was at risk. The report concluded that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the vulnerability of U.S. civil infrastructures, what it called “information systems, the vital arteries of the modern political, economic, and social infrastructures,” constituted a serious “threat to our homeland.”

But it wasn’t a photo opportunity, and few politicians seemed to take notice. The following year, in 1998, Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 63, requiring government agencies to secure their own critical infrastructure systems and to work with the private sector on the problem. PDD 63 created a central-oversight body within the National Security Council called the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO).

CIAO maintained a staff of one: Richard Clarke.

Despite Clarke’s efforts, the Clinton/Gore White House made little follow-through until the last months of the administration, according to a recent review by federal inspectors general. Congress then stepped in, establishing bipartisan commissions to study new threats to the U.S. homeland and means of preventing or combating them. The commissions were created in the same spirit as the Cox commission on Chinese espionage and the Rumsfeld commission on missile defense to tackle pressing national-security issues that critics said the Clinton/Gore administration either failed to tackle or attempted merely to wish away.

The Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, led by GOP Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III, released its second annual report late last year. Its objective was to help local, state and federal officials develop means of responding to the human casualties of a nuclear, chemical or biological attack.

On a broader scale, Congress chartered the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, led by former senators Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., to identify trends to help predict what the world will be like in 25 years, to assess how the United States would fare amid the technological and geopolitical changes and then to propose fundamental ways in which U.S. national-security approaches should be reformed. In February, after a two-year investigation, the Hart-Rudman commission issued its report, bluntly stating: “This commission has concluded that, without significant reforms, American power and influence cannot be sustained.” Hart and Rudman wrote that, “despite the end of the Cold War threat, America faces distinctly new dangers, particularly to the homeland.”

The first of the commission’s five recommendations for national-security organizational change was “ensuring the security of the American homeland.” Its reasoning is blunt: “A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter-century. The risk is not only death and destruction but also a demoralization that could undermine U.S. global leadership. In the face of this threat, our nation has no coherent or integrated governmental structures.”

The Bush administration has seized the problem aggressively with a range of initiatives to have a working system in place to defend the country against attacks on its critical infrastructure. Pentagon insiders tell Insight that Rumsfeld’s reviews pay close attention to homeland defense and that the administration is weighing creation of a special office for that purpose.

The Hart-Rudman commission recommended “that the National Guard be given homeland security as a primary mission, as the U.S. Constitution itself ordains.” The National Guard should be totally reorganized and reconfigured to tackle that mission, according to the commissioners.

In the private sector, too, experts have been planning for the next Pearl Harbor. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think thank, has a major program designed to help policymakers understand homeland defense and chart a proper, bipartisan policy course.

Still, the government’s approach to homeland security remains haphazard. At present, between 23 and 46 separate federal departments and agencies — depending on who’s counting — play a role in homeland security. A National Homeland Security Agency would consolidate the roles under one entity, according to Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Skelton introduced a bill, following the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman report, to direct the president to “develop a comprehensive strategy for homeland security (protection from terrorist or strategic attacks) under which federal, state, and local government organizations coordinate and cooperate to meet security objectives; (2) conduct a comprehensive threat and risk assessment to identify specific homeland security threats; (3) implement the resulting strategy as soon as practicable; (4) designate a single government official responsible for homeland security; and (5) ensure that the strategy is carried out through the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies.”

The bill, and a related one by Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, is sitting in committee as the White House prepares its strategy. The National Security Council’s CIAO now is developing a National Plan for Cyberspace Security and Critical Infrastructure Protection, and is working with state and local governments to increase awareness and coordination. In May, Bush ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to set up an Office of National Preparedness to take charge of the disorganized homeland-security functions spread across the bureaucracy. The often-criticized FEMA has been performing well recently after years of neglect, winning praise from a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) audit that found the agency making progress on terrorism preparedness.

Still, the effort requires high-profile leadership. “There is no single, coordinated U.S. government definition of ‘homeland defense,’” says Mark DeMier of ANSER Analytic Services, a nonprofit U.S. Air Force-funded think tank, and editor of its Homeland Security Bulletin. “It does not even appear in the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. However, consensus does seem to be emerging on the term ‘homeland security.’ The Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review team defines it as the prevention, deterrence and preemption of, and defense against, aggression targeted at U.S. territory, sovereignty, population and infrastructure as well as the management of the consequences of such aggression and other domestic emergencies — a combination of homeland defense and civil support,” according to DeMier.

Disagreement over terms and responsibilities has crippled the new cybersecurity arm of the FBI. The FBI’s National Infrastructure Protection Center, according to another GAO report, suffers from disagreement about the roles of organizations involved in cybersecurity, as well as absent leadership, and has only half the analysts needed. Those shortfalls have retarded the FBI’s ability to fight attacks on the nation’s information infrastructure.

The needed leadership for change may not be far off. When President Bush asked FEMA to create an Office of National Preparedness and for Vice President Cheney to chair a group to produce a terrorism-response plan, he assigned the FEMA office to implement the recommendations of the Cheney panel. In Bush’s words, the new office will “coordinate all federal programs dealing with weapons-of-mass-destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies,” and “will work closely with state and local governments to ensure their planning, training, and equipment needs are addressed. FEMA will also work closely with the Department of Justice, in its lead role for crisis management, to ensure that all facets of our response to the threat from weapons of mass destruction are coordinated and cohesive.”

Bush said he personally would monitor FEMA’s progress by chairing periodic National Security Council meetings specifically to review the matter.

Meanwhile, say insiders, the administration is trying to clean up the mess left by its predecessor. Clarke, Clinton’s former national infrastructure chief whom Bush kept on, now admits that his first attempt under the Clinton administration to deal with infrastructure defense was a set of policies “written by bureaucrats” and that they were wholly inadequate. He attacked a 1999 Clinton/Gore infrastructure-protection plan as one that “could not be translated into business terms that corporate boards and senior management could understand.”

He warns, however, that the private sector’s failure to regulate itself only invites more government regulation. Due to the nature of the threat to the U.S. homeland, Clarke argues that the government must insist on cooperation from the private sector — especially because more than 90 percent of the country’s critical infrastructure is in private hands. “There is a unique challenge here,” Clarke recently told a CSIS gathering. “For the first time in our history, the armed forces cannot defend us from the foreign threat. They cannot surround the power grid. Therefore, we are asking the private sector to defend not only itself, but the country as well.”
posted by Eugene Wei at 10:47 AM | link

Americans in greater danger than believed, report says

Thursday, September 16, 1999

By DAVID BRISCOE
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS





WASHINGTON -- Americans are at more risk than they think, facing possible terrorist attack and other new dangers that superior military power cannot prevent, a Pentagon-appointed panel reported to Defense Secretary William Cohen yesterday.

If the nation is drawn into war, it will bring "casualties and carnage, and combat will not be like a video game, even for Americans," concluded the bipartisan, independent commission headed by former Republican Sen. Warren Rudman and former Democratic Sen. Gary Hart.

"Americans will become increasingly vulnerable to hostile attack on our homeland, and our military superiority will not entirely protect us," the report offers as its No. 1 conclusion.

Rudman of New Hampshire cited "the spreading ability of terrorists to strike Americans at home and abroad."

Hart of Colorado said, "Non-military threats, such as those concerning the global economy, environment and health may become as serious and life-threatening to us as traditional military threats."

Members of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century said America needs to restructure forces to meet 21st century challenges -- a topic the panel will continue to address. The commission will propose a national strategy next year and offer final recommendations to achieve national safety to the next president in 2001.

"Even excellent intelligence will not prevent all nasty surprises or protect Americans from all efforts to harm them," the report stated.

The commission also includes former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.; former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young, who is set to head the National Council of Churches; retired Gen. John Galvin and other diplomatic, military, academic, media and business leaders.

It is one of several panels set up in recent years to assess post-Cold War defense needs. Commission members acknowledged that they reached no conclusions that have not been suggested by others, but said they are obligated to follow up with specific recommendations for restructuring U.S. defenses for the next quarter century.

The last such sweeping reassessment was made in 1947 at the end of World War II, and the same basic defense structures remain, Rudman said.

Gingrich said no one on the panel believes the current setup makes any sense for the future.

"While we are the most powerful nation in the world, in some ways we are becoming more vulnerable," Gingrich said.

"The commission believes Americans are going to be less secure than they believe themselves to be," said commission member Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana who chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The report also predicted:


Rapid advances in information and biotechnologies will create new vulnerabilities for U.S. security, as new technologies divide the world as well as draw it together.

State sovereignty will endure, but some states will fail or fragment and some borders will bend or break.

Foreign crises will continue to spawn atrocities and terrorism.

Outer space will become a "critical and competitive military environment."
posted by Eugene Wei at 10:43 AM | link

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Warren B. Rudman before the Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations of the Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, March 27, 2001

Mr. Chairman,

I am honored to be here today on behalf of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, which I co-chaired together with Senator Gary Hart. Senator Hart regrets that he cannot be with us today.

Sir, I want to get directly to the question that your letter of invitation posed to us: “Why is there no comprehensive national strategy to combat terrorism?”

I would start my answer by pointing out that dealing with terrorism is an enormously complex problem. As we all understand, terrorism is varyingly motivated. Sometimes it emanates from states, sometimes from groups or even individuals, and sometimes it comes from combinations of state-sponsorship and other non-state actors. The sources of terrorist groups are wide, coming from no one region of the world—and, as we have had the misfortune to learn, it can include domestic elements as well. Terrorism also takes several tactical forms: assassination, bombing, biological or chemical attack, cyber-terror, and, potentially, terrorism perpetrated by the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Terrorists may also choose a wide array of targets, a complexity that has generated considerable confusion. While some scholars define terrorism, in its basic form, as essentially unconventional attacks on civilians for any of several purposes, other observers include attacks on uniformed military personnel operating abroad as forms of terrorism. Still others disagree, considering such attacks to be another method of waging conventional warfare. The distinction is not just definitional or theoretical, for it influences how the U.S. Government approaches policy solutions to such problems.

Clearly, given this diversity of motives, sources, tactics, and definitions, the responsibility for dealing with terrorism within the U.S. government ranges over a wide array of Executive Branch departments and agencies, as well as over several Senate and House committees on the Legislative Branch side. Developing an effective, comprehensive strategy for dealing with terrorism would be difficult in any event, but under these circumstances, even more so.

The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century concluded that, however difficult the problem of terrorism may be, we simply must do a better job of dealing with it. There is no national security problem of greater urgency.

The Commission's Phase I Report, on the national security environment of the next 25 years, concluded that the prospect of mass casualty terrorism on American soil is growing sharply. We believe that, over the next quarter century, this danger will not only be one of the most challenging we face, but the one we are least prepared to address. The Commission's Phase II Report, on strategy, focused directly on this challenge, arguing that the United States needed to integrate the challenge of homeland security fully within its national security strategy. The Commission's Phase III Report, released on January 31st, devotes its entire first section—one of five—to the problem of organizing the U.S. government to deal effectively with homeland security. We have argued that to integrate this issue properly into an overall strategic framework, there must be a significant reform of the structures and processes of the current national security apparatus.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Phase III Report recommends the creation of a National Homeland Security Agency. But before I discuss this proposal, I wish to stress what the Commission intends, and does not intend, to achieve with this recommendation.

The United States needs to inculcate strategic thinking and behavior throughout the entire national security structure of government. In the Commission's view, and notwithstanding the early exertions of the new administration, we have a long way to go in this regard. We have not had in recent years a process of integrated strategy formulation, a top down approach led by the President and the senior members of his national security team, where priorities were determined and maintained, and where resources were systematically matched to priorities. There has been almost no effort to undertake functional budgeting analysis for problems that spread over the responsibilities of many Executive Branch departments and agencies—the result being that it is extremely difficult for the Congress, in its oversight role, to have a sense of what the Administration is doing with respect to major national security objectives. Finally, there has been no systematic effort from the NSC level to direct the priorities of the intelligence community, to align them with the priorities of national strategy.

The Commission has made several recommendations with regard to this larger, generic problem in its final Phase III Report. We firmly believe that significant policy innovations cannot be generated or sustained in the absence of managerial reform. Put a little differently, we believe that without a sound managerial base, it is not possible to really have sound policy.

This needs to be clear before we discuss the proposal for a National Homeland Security Agency. We conceive of the National Homeland Security Agency as a part of, not a substitute for, a strategic approach to the problem of homeland security.

Clearly, even with the creation of the National Homeland Security Agency, the National Security Council will still have a critical role in coordinating the various government departments and agencies involved in homeland security. The Commission's proposed strategy for homeland security is three-fold: to prevent, to protect, and to respond to the problem of terrorism and other threats to the homeland. The Department of State has a critical role in prevention, as does the intelligence community and others. The Department of Defense has a critical role in protection, as do other departments and agencies. Many agencies of government, including, for example, the Centers for Disease Control in the Department of Health and Human Services, have a critical role in response. Clearly, we are not proposing to include sections of the intelligence community, the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Department of Health and Human Services in the National Homeland Security Agency. As with any other complex functional area of government responsibility, no single agency is adequate to the task of homeland security.

That said, the United States stands in dire need of stronger organizational mechanisms for homeland security. It needs to clarify accountability, responsibility, and authority among the departments and agencies with a role to play in this increasingly critical area. It needs to realign the diffused responsibilities that sprawl across outdated concepts of boundaries. It also needs to recapitalize several critical components of U.S. Government in this regard. We need a Cabinet-level agency for this purpose. The job is becoming too big, and requires too much operational activity, to be housed at the NSC staff. It is too important to a properly integrated national strategy to be handled off-line by a “czar.” It requires an organizational focus of sufficient heft to deal with the Departments of State, Defense, and Justice in an efficient and effective way.

Mr. Chairman, this Commission's proposal for a National Homeland Security Agency is detailed with great care and precision in the Phase III Report. With your kind permission, I would like to include that section of the Report in the record here—for I see no need to repeat here word for word what the Report has already made available to all.

However, I would like to describe the proposal's essence for the subcommittee. I will not mince words: We propose a Cabinet-level agency for homeland security, whose civilian director will be a statutory advisor to the National Security Council—the same status as the Director of Central Intelligence or the Chairman of the JCS. That Director will be appointed by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate. The basis of this agency will be the present Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Added to FEMA will be the Coast Guard (from the Department of Transportation), the Border Patrol (from the Department of Justice under INS), the Customs Service (from the Department of the Treasury), the National Domestic Preparedness Office (NDPO), currently housed at the FBI, and an array of cyber-security programs now housed varyingly in the FBI, the Commerce Department, and elsewhere.

Together, the National Homeland Security Agency will have three directorates (Prevention; Critical Infrastructure Protection; and Emergency Preparedness and Response), and a National Crisis Action Center to focus federal action in the event of a national emergency. The Agency will build on FEMA's regional organization, and will not be heavily focused in the Washington, DC area. It will remain focused on augmenting and aiding state and local resources.

The purpose of this realignment of assets is to get more than the sum of the parts from our effort in this area. Right now, unfortunately, we are getting much less than the sum of the parts. We are not proposing vast new undertakings. We are not proposing a highly centralized bureaucratic behemoth. We are not proposing to spend vastly more money than we are spending now.

We are proposing a realignment and a rationalization of what we already do, so that we can do it right. In this regard, we intend for the union of FEMA, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Customs, and other organizational elements to produce a new institutional culture, new synergies, and higher morale. We are proposing to match authority, responsibility, and accountability. We are proposing to solve the “Who's in charge?” problem.

Perhaps most important, we are proposing to do all this in such a way as to guarantee the civil liberties we all hold dear. Since it is very likely that Defense Department assets would have to come into play in response to a mass-casualty attack on U.S. soil, the best way to ensure that we violate the U.S. Constitution is to not plan and train ahead for such contingencies. The Director of the National Homeland Security Agency, I repeat, is a civilian. If no such person is designated responsible ahead of time to plan, train, and coordinate for the sort of national emergency of which we are speaking, I leave it to your imaginations—and to your mastery of American history—to predict what a condition of national panic might produce in this regard.



Mr. Chairman, one final point if I may. All fourteen of us on this Commission are united in our belief that this proposal is the best way for the United States government to see to the common defense. All fourteen of us, without dissent, agreed to put this subject first and foremost in our final Phase III Report. All fourteen of us, seven Democrats and seven Republicans, are determined to do what we can to promote this recommendation on a fully bipartisan basis.

But we are not naïve. We know that we are asking for big changes. I know, as a former member of the Legislative Branch, that what we are proposing requires complex and difficult Congressional action. This proposal stretches over the jurisdiction of at least seven committees of the House and Senate. That is why, Mr. Chairman, the work of this committee, the Committee on Government Reform, is so critical to the eventual success of this effort. And that is why I again want to express my gratitude for the opportunity to be here today.

posted by Eugene Wei at 10:38 AM | link

David Ensor: Terrorism Report

January 31, 2001
Web posted at: 7:08 p.m. EST (0008 GMT)


David Ensor is CNN’s national security correspondent, and is based in Washington, D.C.

CNN Moderator: What are some of the key points of the Terrorism Report released today by the Commission on National Security in the 21st Century?

David Ensor: Well the report says that although the U.S. thinks of itself as a pretty secure great power, the fact is that the U.S. faces extraordinary dangers for which it is not prepared. The biggest one is the likelihood of a large-scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil using a weapon of mass destruction. I can go into the report’s recommendations to address that issue in a second.

Two additional threats identified in the report are America's education system and declining research. Our research has fallen behind so badly that the technological edge, which has always been this country’s most important source of national security, will be lost soon. The report also calls for a revamping of the whole national security part of the government, which it says is sort of an out-of-date Cold War structure.

CNN Moderator: Now that the report has been released, what are the next steps?

David Ensor: The report makes specific recommendations to the president and Congress. Commissioners will be briefing the President and Congress and basically lobbying them to do something. Perhaps the most dramatic thing the commission is asking for is a new cabinet-level agency to deal with the threat of terrorism.

VIDEO
National Security Correspondent David Ensor has more on the commission's findings

Play video
(QuickTime, Real or Windows Media)



Bush Administration officials tell me they will look seriously at this idea, but I must tell you it is also controversial. Every time you break bureaucratic crockery in this town, there are people who oppose that. Some of the recently departed Clinton people agree about the problem, the threat of terrorism, but do not agree with this solution.

Question from chat room: Is the report available for the public to read?

David Ensor: Yes. It is on the web at www.nssg.gov. It is the Hart-Rudman Commission.

CNN Moderator: The Defense Department commissioned this study several years ago. Why has it taken so long to complete the report?

David Ensor: It is actually the third and final part of the report. The first two parts assess the problem; this part offers specific solutions or recommendations. They just put a lot of staff time into this.

CNN Moderator: Is it likely that the commission will face opposition to its finding and by whom?

David Ensor: Yes, it is likely. For example, the Justice Department probably doesn't want to give up the boarder patrol, and I don't suppose the Treasury Secretary wants to give up the Custom service. I was talking yesterday to Jim Steinberg, who was Mr. Clinton's Deputy National Security Advisor. He agrees the threat of major terrorism in this country is high, but he doesn't think another new agency is the way to respond to it.

CNN Moderator: Can you tell us a little more about the educational portion of the recommendations?

David Ensor: The guy who is really is pushing this side of the thing is former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. At a news conference today, he read this from the report: , " The inadequacies of our systems in research and education pose a greater threat to the United States national security over the next quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might imagine."

The report says we desperately need more Americans to acquire degrees in math, science or engineering. It goes on to recommend that the U.S. government should offer scholarships to anyone willing to major in those subjects and should forgive the loans entirely for anyone willing to work for the U.S. government for a couple of years after graduation. Former Senator Rudman, who is the commission co-chairman, told me the statistics they saw show that most of the students in American graduate schools who are studying math, science or engineering are foreigners who will go back to their countries.

Question from chat room: How likely is it that Congress will actively address some of these concerns?

David Ensor: Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Arm Services Sub-Committee on emerging threats, has already said he wants to hold hearings on this. He likes the ideas in the report. I think it will be influential, though some of these recommendations are quite controversial and unlikely.

CNN Moderator: Do you have any final thoughts to share with us today?

David Ensor: I just want to underscore what the commission said: Americans may not realize how fast the world is changing in terms of weapons like biological terrorism weapons. Throughout most of our history, we have felt very safe between two large oceans; I’m afraid this is about to end. This commission predicts terrorism causing large numbers of casualties in the heartland in the coming years. It says we are already vulnerable to that. I guess I will just leave you with the fact that this is a rather chilling thought.

CNN Moderator: Thank you for joining us today.

David Ensor: Well thank you.

David Ensor joined the chat room via telephone from Washington, DC and CNN.com provided a typist. The above is an edited transcript of the interview on Wednesday, January 31, 2001.

posted by Eugene Wei at 10:35 AM | link

Hart/Rudman -- 21st Century Commission Recommends New Anti-Terror Cabinet Agency

Feb 2, 2001

A bipartisan panel led by former US senators Warren B. Rudman and Gary Hart on Wednesday called for the creation of a Cabinet-level agency to assume responsibility for defending the United States against the increasing likelihood of terrorist attacks in the country. The commission making the recommendation included high-ranking military and former Cabinet secretaries. Their report warned bluntly that terrorists probably will attack the US with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons at some point within the next 25 years.

The commission proposed a complete redesign of the National Guard to provide the proposed new "Homeland Security Agency" with U.S.-based troops to combat those who threaten a nation that for more than two centuries was isolated from attack by two oceans. The panel outlined a far-reaching reorganization of the Pentagon, State Department, National Security Council and other agencies, saying that they have become bloated and unfocused. The report even urged Congress to streamline its own committee structure to keep interference in national security matters at a minimum.

The commission acknowledged that implementing the recommendations would be difficult. Congress would have to pass legislation authorizing the changes. If all of the recommendations were to become law, it would mark the most sweeping renovation of US defense and foreign policy operations since approval of the landmark National Security Act of 1947. Like that measure, which refocused World War II-era agencies on the challenges of the Cold War, the commission's plan is intended to ready the nation for starkly different threats in a new century.

The panel, in what many are calling a radical departure from "conventional wisdom," recommended folding the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Customs Service, Border Patrol and Coast Guard into the new "Homeland Security Agency." It said that the National Guard should be "reorganized, properly trained and adequately equipped" to cope with natural disasters and attacks on U.S. targets by weapons of mass destruction. The commission said that the National Guard should be relieved of the responsibility of participating in overseas deployments and concentrate on security at home.

The report said: "The combination of unconventional weapons proliferation with the persistence of international terrorism will end the relative invulnerability of the US homeland to catastrophic attack. A direct attack against American citizens on American soil is likely over the next quarter century. The risk is not only death and destruction but also a demoralization that could undermine US global leadership. In the face of this threat, our nation has no coherent or integrated governmental structures."

US armed forces now are organized and trained to have the capability to fight two major overseas wars at the same time, a contingency the commission called "very remote." The report recommended abandoning the two-war strategy to permit the Pentagon to prepare for situations like the recent wars in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, which it characterized as far more likely. The panel said that both the State Department and the Pentagon "need substantial bureaucratic remodeling."

posted by Eugene Wei at 10:32 AM | link

STATEMENT

"HOMELAND DEFENSE: EXAMINING THE HART-RUDMAN REPORT"
TECHNOLOGY, TERRORISM, AND GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION SUBCOMMITTEE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
APRIL 3, 2001



Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am glad that we are having a hearing on the Phase III report of the Hart-Rudman Commission.

I very much appreciate the appearance today of Senator Gary Hart and Senator Warren Rudman, the co-chairmen of the commission, as well as of Congressman Lee Hamilton, a member of the commission.

The three of them can collectively boast of almost 60 years in Congress working on national security policy and protecting our country from terrorism.

Let me say first of all that I agree with the thrust of the commission's recommendations: that we need to make fundamental changes in our counterterrorism policy.

I could not agree more that our current counterterrorism policy is fragmented, uncoordinated, and unaccountable.

As I see it, a main problem here is that we don't know who is in charge of preparing for and responding to a catastrophic terrorist attack.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently found that federal, state, and local governments had not agreed on a clear chain of command for dealing with a terrorist incident.

I disagree with those who suggest that such a clear chain of command is impossible. Or that bureaucratic turf wars would prevent us from designating a lead agency to take charge in the event of a terrorist attack.

After all, other Western industrialized countries facing terrorists have met this challenge.

A recent GAO report found that of six countries surveyed - the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, Israel, and the UK - only the U.S. has failed to determine clearly who would be in charge of responding to a terrorist incident.

Another problem is that the government has spread counterterrorism assets over at least 45 agencies, and these agencies are not coordinated to prevent or protect against or respond to a major terrorist attack.

One result is that terrorism has a tendency to drop off the radar screen of the national security establishment.

As former U.S. Customs Commissioner Ray Kelly has said, "The whole issue of counterterrorism needs an advocate, a high-level person-perhaps ... a Cabinet [officer] - to make certain that there's consistent attention to the issue." [CNN, Jan. 31, 2001]

Another problem is that agencies tend to duplicate each other's efforts, thus getting in each other's way and wasting taxpayer dollars.

As former FEMA chief James Lee Witt said recently, "You've got too many agencies doing the same thing." [Quoted in The St. Petersburg Times, Jan. 10, 2001]

In addition, many federal agencies seem to be focusing on general vulnerabilities rather than credible threats and on worse-case scenarios instead of likely probabilities.

For example, HHS has recently tried to establish a national pharmaceutical and vaccine stockpile that doesn't match intelligence agencies' judgments of the most likely chemical and biological agents that terrorists might use.

Such problems are not just bureaucratic. They could result in the needless loss of tens of thousands of lives in a catastrophic terrorist attack.

Many experts, including members of the Hart-Rudman Commission, believe that a catastrophic terrorist attack is virtually inevitable in the next 25 years.

Such an attack could take many forms.

The most likely one would be a terrorist assault on a large city with a germ weapon or a cyberattack on the East Coast air traffic control system.

In fact, as a witness told us last week at a subcommittee hearing, a group or nation with a budget of around $10 million and a team of about 30 computer experts could wreak billions of dollars of damage to U.S. infrastructure.

And we also cannot forget the most obvious and probable terrorist threat: that from simple conventional weapons.

The terrorists who bombed the U.S.S. Cole, our African embassies, the Atlanta Olympics, the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, and the World Trade Center all relied on a range of readily available, easily obtainable bombmaking materials.

For example, the urea nitrate bomb used at the World Trade Center costs about $400 to make. That bomb caused at least a half billion dollars in damages.

To be sure, America has always viewed itself as relatively safe from terrorist attack-surrounded as it is by friendly neighbors and large oceans.

However, the threat of terrorist attack on our nation remains quite real.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses on the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman Commission report and on the problem of terrorism.


And I look forward to working with you on this important issue.

Thank you.

Senator Feinstein
posted by Eugene Wei at 10:31 AM | link

What a fun wedding!

Saturday, Greg and Kristin tied the knot against the backdrop of Mount Hood in Oregon. Forgot popcorn flicks, this was the crowd-pleasing event of the summer thus far. I'm too exhausted (not to mention staggered by some residual intoxication) to write too much, but some highlights:
--Timberline Lodge at Mount Hood was a great place for the wedding. Plenty to do for guests while awaiting official events, and what a beautiful backdrop. I went hiking, mountain biking, star-gazing.
--Very short ceremony. I'm not against long ceremonies, but long religious ceremonies tend to lose me. Don't obscure the point of the gig, which is to share the love of groom and bride with all.
--All star lineup of bridesmaids. Hubba hubba (oops, did I write that? Symptom of the unfreezing process, or perhaps the 6000 foot altitude at Mount Hood).
--Lots of fun folks, who wanted to dance, and good music from Kevin and Pete. I hate wedding where the music is lousy, and the dancing ends early. Kristin, being the dancing machine that she us, didn't let us down, switching to white sneakers beneath her wedding dress to close down the dance floor.
--Lots of fun, young folks. Lots of familiar faces, and just enough unfamiliar ones.
--Good weather, good food, and an open bar. At the end of the night, I single-handedly rescued many an orphaned drink. I had an altitude-amplified hangover which a heart-bursting climb up the mountain on my mountain bike pumped out of my system.

And of course, Greg and Kristin are cool people. Greg is just a good guy, and Kristin is just cool. Before her many knee
surgeries, she was very fast. Ranked in the country in the 100m dash, I think, and then she played soccer at UConn. Now that's cool.

Brought the big lens, so hopefully I'll have some good shots to post soon. Wish I had some color film in the camera to capture some of the scenery, but black and white for weddings seems appropriate, timeless.

Passing out.
posted by Eugene Wei at 12:18 AM | link

That Sampras-Agassi match tonight was about as good as modern tennis gets. Not quite the subtlety of a Borg Mcenroe match, but today's game is power, and in that game, baseline winners and aces are common. As a tennis fan, you have to enjoy compressed moments of power. Aesthetically, it lacks the same drama as a long rally in the olden days. The opponent is merely a prop, standing there helpless as one of Sampras' serves flies by to bounce off the back wall, or as Agassi bends at the knees, rotates, and shoots a groundstroke that zips about two inches above the net and ends up in the back corner of the court.

The game also appears more violent. With modern rackets permitting greater power and spin, and the advent of shots like the Western forehand which permit more controlled application of power and to the ball, players attack the ball with short, violent motions rather than the long, picturesque strokes you picture in old black and white tennis videos in which aristocrats played in sweaters and slacks, barely breaking a sweat.

Sampras has many more grand slams than Agassi, yet I can't shake the feeling that Sampras is always the underdog out there. Sampras has the classic game, the long strokes and serve and volley game of the old school. The one-handed backhand, the long, elegant service motion. A lot of power, a great all court game. But he doesn't have the fearsome face of a guy who wants to dominate his opponent. It is a tragic face, and you sense that he is physically fragile, that heat and long rallies will break him down.

Agassi, on the other hand, is the epitome of the modern day tennis player. Power groundstroke game. A freak of nature with hand eye coordination that allows him to hit balls on the rise, to do all sorts of things normal people are taught not to do, like volley with full swings. He rarely seems physically fragile. It's always a miracle to me when Sampras beats him. Even when Agassi loses, it doesn't move me. It always feels as if Sampras has survived Agassi's game, rather than defeated him. Andre seems indomitable, and when he loses he doesn't mope. He just shrugs it off, compliments his opponent (though it never sounds sincere; it feels like he's implying his opponent was lucky), and trudges off, as if he has enough energy to go another few sets.

Sampras has a ton of game, and the trophy prom-queen wife, but it seems like he still lacks confidence. I root for him because of his one-handed backhand, his classic style. Not too many play like him today. All those two-fisted backhand bombers in the game today remind me of Suzuki-taught robot violinist hordes I used to encounter at recitals.

The most tragic player out there, to me, is Monica Seles. Forget Capriati and her teen angst. Seles was dominating the tennis world, and then some psychotic runs out on the court and stabs her. She's never been the same. To lose out on a great career to some unbelievable incident like that--it's an absurd tragedy. No hubris, as in some Greek play. Unfortunately, while she was rehabilitating her mind and body, folks like the Williams sisters came along. Venus has serious game. I'll be surprised if she loses.
posted by Eugene Wei at 9:50 PM | link

Pauline Kael

Film critic Pauline Kael passed away today at age 82. She is without a doubt the greatest film critic of all time. She had Parkinson's Disease and hadn't published any reviews since 1991, though every week I wish I could find out what she thought of the movies just released. She's the type of critic whose opinions you would adopt as your own if you agreed with her, and if you didn't agree with her, you'd still lose some faith in your own opinion.

If you love movies, you owe it to yourself to try and track down some of the collections of her reviews. Unfortunately, most of them are out of print, but you can find many used copies on the Internet. If you just want one, For Keeps is probably the wisest choice as it includes reviews from all of her previous collections.

She wrote reviews that were works of art themselves, elevating criticism to its highest form. You'd probably never see her reviews in newspaper ads today, except perhaps for arthouse films, because she would not write the type of trite sound bites studios favor--"Best thriller of the year!". For example, she wrote of Woody Allen, in her review of Sleeper: "He has the city-wise effrontery of a shrimp who began by using language to protect himself and then discovered that language has a life of its own... The tension between his insecurity and his wit makes us empathize with him; we, too, are scared to show how smart we feel." Yes, of course!

Film buffs love her because she saw through not only the trashy blockbusters but also pretentious art films. At times, she'd admit that she had enjoyed a film with obvious flaws, and you'd be relieved that someone else was able to articulate your guilty pleasure. Other critics today, when they review classic films like Last Tango in Paris, will always reference Kael's original review. No other critic today has her pull among film lovers, critics, directors, and actors.

Among her more memorable reviews were those dismissing films like The Sound of Music and Dances with Wolves. She was fortunate to review movies during the 70's, the golden age for filmmaking in the twentieth century. She would probably be disappointed with most of the studio movies today.

Some random writings from around the web:
--Roger Ebert, a big Kael fan, looked back at her life today.
--On Ain't It Cool News, her passing was first reported by a contributor nicknamed Butt Monkey.
--An interview with Kael in Modern Maturity, in which she reveals, among other interesting opinions, that she likes Jim Carrey.
--A whole slew of remembrances at Salon, from Stephanie Zacharek to Ken Tucker to Charles Taylor
--Nothing from The New Yorker, though.

Digression--Roger Ebert writes of Lawrence of Arabia: "As for ''Lawrence,'' after its glorious re-release in 70mm in 1989, it has returned again to video, where it crouches inside its box like a tall man in a low room. You can view it on video and get an idea of its story and a hint of its majesty, but to get the feeling of Lean's masterpiece you need to somehow, somewhere, see it in 70mm on a big screen. This experience is on the short list of things that must be done during the lifetime of every lover of film."

I was fortunate enough to see a 70mm print of it at Seattle's Cinerama back when that theater opened, in 1999(?). I saw a midnight showing that got out at around 4am. I fell asleep briefly after the intermission, but it entered my mind like a rich, potent dream.

posted by Eugene Wei at 10:19 AM | link