Homeland Security: Keeping it Easy to Blow Stuff Up.

[elder999]

In the course of my work, I’ve given a fair amount of thought to the storage of explosives, and other hazardous substances. Lately, it’s become fairly clear to me that other people with Homeland Security have not. The recent theft of 350 lbs. of ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO) that was stored behind a chain link fence just outside of Albuquerque not only made a little work for me, but has given me pause.

Three things about the theft have me a little worried. One, no one knows for sure when the actual theft took place, because apparently no one checks the storage site very regularly. Two, that getting it was apparently sooooo easy.

In and of itself, the ANFO isn’t all that dangerous. Yes, it’s the same stuff that was used to blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City, but it requires at least a rudimentary detonator. The people who stole the ANFO probably weren’t planning a heinous crime, because it wasn’t long before they dumped the stuff, and it was found in an arroyo. Which brings me to worry number three: If a group of stupid punks on a petty crime spree can stumble onto a fairly large quantity of explosive materials, the criminals with brains aren’t going to have any trouble getting it (more likely making it) at all.

The issue brought to mind some of my concerns about the whole Homeland Security mission. It seems to me that Tom Ridge’s office isn’t following all their right priorities. Take, for example, the recent directive that has the FBI keeping close watch on people who demonstrate against the war in Iraq. I’m guessing that the kind of people who are willing to risk rubber bullets, tear gas, fire hoses and arrest in order to publicly proclaim their belief that people shouldn’t be killing each other are not likely to be secretly planning on killing each other.

Same goes for the whole “let’s see what books they’ve been checking out of the library” concept. Clearly, the legislators who allowed this egregious section of the PA-the, uh, legislation in question-haven’t spent much time in a public library lately. First of all, libraries all have chairs where you can sit and actually read any book you want in relative privacy without having to check it out. Secondly, they all have photocopiers so you can copy unlimited pages from a book-also without having to check it out. More to the point, if one were planning some sort of nefarious activity, odds are good one would hardly use the library as a reference at all. In fact. most of the people who most often check out books pertaining to such things are kids, hobbyist, novelists, and, well, people like me.

Never mind the internet, where the government has found that one can find information n just about everything.

It’s true: information can be dangerous, and non self-respecting government wants its populace armed with too much knowledge, but I’ve always known-as has anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the field-that the actual substances for making such things are far more dangerous-and less ubiquitous- than the instructions for putting them together.

My point is that maybe, just maybe, it might be a little more cost effective and efficient-not to mentiont less of an insult to the Bill of Rights- to monitor the materials a terrorist would likely use to carry out an attack, rather than monitor the information.

Like maybe, you don’t want to store a lot of explosives in the open in an unguarded pen, that’s not even monitored daily, that can be broken into with a pair of $24 bolt cutter,and that sports a bright yellow sign proclaiming ”DANGEROUS EXPLOSIVES.”

While part of my work is paid for under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security, this sort of thing isn’t what I’m paid for, exactly, and it got me wondering just what we were doing to monitor explosives and other potential weapons of mass destruction-there are soooo many, you know. My first stop was Homeland Security’s (whitehouse.gov/homeland)official web page. If you scroll down to the bottom –past all the self-congratulatory bluster-there’s a link called “The National Strategy for Homeland Security” ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/index.html ). I couldn’t find anything about monitoring explosives, but under the heading “Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets,”-something I am paid for- I found the subheading “Chemical Industry and Hazardous Materials.” The agency in charge of this sector is the EPA.

Curious as to what sorts of directives the EPA had handed down regarding “hazardous materials,” like explosives, I gave them a call., Their very nice spokesman, Dave Bary-no lie-told me that the EPA doesn’t deal with “materials,” exactly, at least not commercial materials, like explosives, gasoline and chlorine .The EPA only deals with “waste”-you know, the stuff that’s left over when we’re (the government) done making nuclear warheads to protect us from all the weapons of mass destruction out there.


To be continued……………

[elder999]

So, I tried the New Mexico office of Homeland Security, and got fed all sorts of reassuring things like “the goal is to have everybody working together, “ by their communications director. He couldn’t tell me what that meant in terms of making sure the stuff to make bombs out of is hard to come by, though.

My next call was to the folks at Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), because they DO deal with explosives. A special agent out of Phoenix told me that although the ATF is the only government agency that deals with explosives, it doesn’t come “under the Department of Homeland Security.” HE also said lots of reassuring things about working with the Joint Terrorism Task Force any time they have an explosives theft, but I still couldn’t get a clear picture of what we’re doing to prevent theft.

That’s when he mentioned the Safe Explosives Act, sponsored by Senator Herb Kohl, of Wisconsin. It’s meant to provide tighter security for explosive materials and increase security measures for purchasers and possessors of explosives, because, as he told congress in February of 2002: “In some states it is easier to get enough explosives to take down a building than it is to buy a gun, get a driver’s license or even a fishing license.” In truth, the Safe Explosives Act does make it more difficult to obtain explosives, assuming would-be terrorists were bothering to go through proper, legal channels. If they want to steal ‘em, though, that’s as easy as ever.

It seems for years now that it’s been illegal for felons, fugitives, drug addicts, and what the Act refers to as “mental defectives” to purchase explosives. The Act also added to the list nonpermanent aliens, dishonorable discharges from the military, and folks who have renounced their U.S. citizenship. All of us law-abiding citizens can still buy explosives-the big difference is that now we have to apply for a federal permit, get fingerprinted and undergo a background check. Thank goodness!

Thanks to the Act, you can now be charged with a felony if you fail to report the theft of explosives within 24 hours of when you dicover them missing-both good things, plus it mandates that agents of the ATF physically inspect the storage facilities of all licensees at least once…..every three years.

The ACT didn’t require anything more of the firm where the ANFO was stolen than what it already does-they were in compliance.
Get a license, get a transportable-that’s semi-truck trailer without the wheels to you-with welded, riveted or bolted doors on the rear end, add a couple of padlocks and signs, and you too can legally store a large quantity of explosives...Or, buy a pair of bolt cutters, and have very little trouble stealing it.

In essence, what the ATF told me was that the people really charged with policing the explosives industry is the explosives industry. “That’s disconcerting for us,” he said. Which probably means you should be petrified……..

[william northcote]

Aaron, you always seemed concerned for the country and the people that live in there. With your secret work at Los Alamos, you have debated the theory that if you quit, will the work continue? Answer:yes for everyone is expendable. Maybe not replaicable in work terms, but expendable.

Say for instance, someone decides to blow up a neighborhood. Cue one smouldering crater big enough to make the superdome out of including the car park. Life goes on, people worry that it may be them, so on and so forth.

Homeland security status is at number 4 - elevated or high. People are vigilant but not 100% paranoid as to shop some guy in a turban who may or may not look like Bin Laden. At the mo everything is fine. No one is going to perforn Invasion USA, as every emergency service will be alerted and then it is time for a lockdown.

If terrorist cells are planning a strike, the security council will know of it through International contacts regarding movement, who they meet, where they been. Since 9/11 your country has tightened security a bit more than it was. It may all look the same, but underneath, there is something that will take care of it.

Even if it is an american who has a grudge against the establishment, they may commit the act, but how long will they last on the run with everyone baying for blood? Not long, in my estimation.

So stop worrying too much, just worry enough to be vigilant. After all, mainland England had the I.R.A to worry over for a few decades. One policeman killes in Tadcaster and a boming in Manchester in the early 90's and all the rubbish bins disappeared for a few months. So take it easy, sleep well in bed and awake to the morning ready to see the profs in ALamos kooky brain factory.

[Catalase]

Take, for example, the recent directive that has the FBI keeping close watch on people who demonstrate against the war in Iraq. I’m guessing that the kind of people who are willing to risk rubber bullets, tear gas, fire hoses and arrest in order to publicly proclaim their belief that people shouldn’t be killing each other are not likely to be secretly planning on killing each other.

This is actually the only part of your post I have any quibble over. While the people who are mostly doing the DEMONSTRATING are the sort that I would classify as harmless except to people trying to get to work on time, the people who are largely ORGANIZING the demonstrations are not harmless. International ANSWER, which has done the gruntwork organizing most of the big protests in America and Britain, is a front for the Stalinist Worker's World Party. If you read some of their materials, they pledge their support for the "resistance fighters" in Iraq, as well as various other dubious causes- and given the financial relationships that tend to exist between friendly public organizations and unfriendlies that mainly exist to fund terrorism, they do bear watching.

Mr. Smith from down the street with the "NO WAR" sign on his front lawn does not, however, and the library thing is just unfathomably retarded.

My take on the situation is that our "homeland defense" policies and organizations prior to 9/11 were a typical morass of termite-infested bureaucratic deadwood, and now that the structure has been kicked over, what's going on now is not sensible reform but one giant CYA chicken run. What I'm really hoping is that as the dust settles and the political pressure eases cooler heads will start to prevail, and that it's not going to take another terrorist attack to get things re-tracked.

I'm also hoping that the potential terrorists who ARE level-headed and competent are far too busy with the havoc we're creating for them abroad to take proper advantage. We may not have Homeland Security together, but we have dealt the infrastructure existing elsewhere some good hard kicks, and they're trying to get both their funding channels and their leadership back together. It takes money, time, and planning to discover the cracks in the system that we know about because we live within it, to take advantage, to get the right equipment to make the materials usable, to move it around, to get trustworthy manpower, to plan an attack that's actually going to succeed... and so forth.

I try not to fret too hard, just stay alert and watch what's going on. I figure as incompetent as we can be, everyone else isn't that much better. (I mean, shoe bomb. Who came up with THAT design?) If America managed to survive the Cold War and the Carter administration alike, maybe we're more durable than we might think. :)