Friday, January 8, 2010

President Obama gives Intelligence 101 speech

"As President, I have solemn responsibility to protect our nation and our people and when the system fails, it is my responsibility," said President Obama yesterday in his speech about the lapse in security of the "Underwear" Bomber. About time that President Obama takes responsibility and stops blaming the Bush Administration for all this challenges. I agree with President Obama that there was not one piece of data missed; rather the system as a whole failed to analyze the data properly. Perhaps the scolding President Obama gave the C.I.A earlier this year is having repercussions that he did not anticipate. The more troubling aspect of this incident is that Americans will see their freedoms reduced further under the guise of "National Security". I do not foresee another Patriot Act but the application of intrusive scanning may be moving us down that road.

President Obama said, "Ultimately, the buck stops with me." Did Hoover just walk into the White House? It is refreshing to hear President Obama to take responsibility and that he may finally understand the tough job it is to keep freedoms safe from those that seek to destroy it. "Because great and proud nations don't hunker down and hide behind walls of suspicion and mistrust. That is exactly what our adversaries want," stated President Obama. Correct, and our adversaries want to disrupt our economy and encourage further erosion of our freedoms. The plan going forward appears to be out of Intelligence Analysis 101 class.

Some of the actions President Obama laid out were timely distribution of intelligence reports; improve watch list databases, enhanced intelligence analysis, and aggressive and thorough pursuit of terrorism threat threads. See a more comprehensive list at: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6065ZB20100107. All of these should already be in place. Perhaps if President Obama hadn't blasted the intelligence community earlier this year, they would be more apt to aggressively pursue terror suspects. Granted no system is fool proof and someone will always find a way to beat the system. As the old saying goes, "We need to be vigilant every day; the terrorists only need to be lucky once." What is the cost to Americans? After 9/11 we saw the Bush administration use that attack to pass the Patriot Act and now we see the Obama administration using the Christmas Day attack to deploy 300 advanced imaging scanners in the United States airport this year.

Here is what we can expect the TSA agents to see from the use of the scanners to be used:



Now is this something we as a Free Society need to subject ourselves to in order to "feel safer"? The TSA and government officials are saying that the TSA agent viewing these scans will not be in the same room as the person being scanned and that is to make us feel better? I was watching C-SPAN yesterday over the lunch hour, instead of having health care discussions on, the English House of Commons was on. The members of the House of Commons were grilling the Secretary of the Defense Ministry over various topics including the use of full-body scanners. The debate centered on the amount of personal freedom the members were willing to give up. The discussion did bring up the point about what would happen to the images. To which the honorable Secretary did not have an immediate answer.

Now the Obama administration contends that these images will not see the light of day and in fact will be destroyed. Really! If they are destroyed then what evidence one will have to go back to when determining how someone got another diaper bomb on the plane? Plus as one can tell from the images above, a woman with large breasts or a man with a large gut could easily hid bomb material. Also, my guess is that children will not be subject to these intrusive scanners which will give the terrorist their mule to getting explosives on the plane. The question comes down to this: How much personal freedom do we want to give up for safety from terror attacks? I do applaud President Obama for taking the potential terror attacks are still a real threat.

16 comments:

  1. Are you really suggesting that the CIA didn't do their job out of spite towards the President?

    Our adversaries don't care about the erosion of our freedoms. They want us dead by anyway necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am not suggesting the CIA is not doing their job. What I am saying is that they are a bit more cautious as to the means used to the them after Obama scolded them for aggressive tactics...and that goes beyond the use of waterboarding. Ask yourself this: Would you be more cautious about your job if someone came in and said that what you had been doing was subject to prosecution?

    ReplyDelete
  3. We both know that nothing is perfect...right?
    However, privacy...intrusive...what balance needs to be struck to say thay that flying is not a right and if you want to fly, you are going to have to undergo some strict security measures.
    Personally, I don't get it. I was listening to an interview from an ACLU lawyer and he was mentioning people with colostomy bags which could be seen with the scanner. Are you kidding me? Are the security techs all 14 years old and giggling at that?
    What needs to happen is a total reinvention of the security process that involves these scanners and better intelligence sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So you are comfortable for a scann to be performed on an infant, 6 year-old, 12 year-old child? I agree that people need to show some professionalism and that no system is perfect. The trouble is that the threats we are experiencing are coming from outside the United States...So we can scan all we want here, but it makes little difference if its not done other places and other places are having major objections on the grounds of personal privacy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No...I don't. Maybe I'm not as modest as you, but to me the argument is silly. Your argument about where the threats are coming from should indicate that I shouldn't need to remove my shoes or belt on a domestic flight either.

    I am not calling for just scanning people, however, what needs to happen is a uniform policy to ensure safety on ALL flights.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I disagree. The miss here had nothing to do with methods of gathering information that could be subject to prosecution. The intelligence was already there. It was connecting the dots that failed. I don't see how they could fear prosecution in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My objection to the scanner is not modesty. I really could care less if someone sees me naked, unless of course it results in me getting arrested. I agree that removing the shoes and belt are other over the top examples of "airport security".

    I agree that what took place here was a failure of connecting the dots. Part of the failure though,which more to my point, is the aggressive pursuit that Obama is now calling for that he lambasted the CIA for doing after taking office. We all agree that this situation arrived due to a breakdown in the system.

    I also wonder why Homeland Secretary has a job still since she said the system worked and now it has come out that they were going to question the guy when he landed...so they were aware of something and they dropped the ball. Can we affored to keep someone in their position if they errored?

    ReplyDelete
  8. In a way the system did work, though. The intellegence was there. I'm not defending how it went down, but things could be worse.

    You never made a mistake at work? Missed a deadline? Engaged in conduct that was inappropriate and that you could have been fired for?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have never made a mistake at work or engaged in activities at work that could have resulted in harming, endangering, or killing anyone or their safety. The stakes are much higher for those in office and the standard, or bar, is even higher. We cannot afford to have people in elected or appointed office that lack the ability to perform their job.

    While many agencies were involved, it is the job of the Homeland Security Secretary to ensure that the dots are connected..and obviously they knew enough to wait for Umar to get to Detriot to be questioned yet not enough to stop him from boarder in the plane. My thought is if you want to question someone..keep the off the plane.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And if I am ever elected to office or appointed to office and something similar happened. I'd be the first person to hold myself accountable and take the required actions to find my replacement.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think we should be more concerned about the CIA attack in Afghanistan. They only way we are really going to "win the war against terrorism", something I don't think ever will actually happen, is by having agents on the ground and infiltrating these organizations. I think our best intelligence will come this way. The CIA trusted a double agent. That makes me feel vastly less confident in our agencies than what happened on the plane.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The CIA is just one arm of our intelligence community and they had good intel that the bomber was set to flip. To think otherwise would be to say those that wage war are less intelligent than our agents. Just happened that in that case, the bomber turned the table on the CIA. Something I think the CIA has more wins then losses in though.

    Plus, if the bombers are blowing things up over in Europe, Asia, or Africa that won't subside with putting scanners in US Airports. Unless of course it can read the minds of those leaving the United States and heading for those regions to determine if they are 'becoming radicalized'.

    I agree with you that our best intelligence will come with front line officers. Does that mean you are prepared to allow the CIA to run like it did during the 70's and 80's or even under the Bush administration? As Gen Sherman said, "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over."

    ReplyDelete
  13. Good intel or not, they still let him walk into the base without searching him. Kind of like letting someone board the plane.

    Don't we have plenty of examples of those waging war being more intelligent, if that's how you are describing it? Otherwise we wouldn't have all of these suicide bombers going off across the world.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I guess I have not read enough on the attack to determine the manner in which the bomber was brought into the area with the CIA operatives. Are they reporting that no bomb sniffing dogs were present or metal detectors were used at the entrance of the facility?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Okay..I see that MSNBC has hit a new low and Keith Olbermann has reduced his show to conspiracy.

    An exchange by Olbermann and Richard Wolfe the other night discussed that the Christmas Bomber was an inside job. http://magic3400.newsvine.com/_news/2010/01/05/3717519-poll-the-christmas-bomber-security-failure-was-it-an-inside-job

    If that is true, then I guess the scolding Obama gave the CIA early is paying dividends in keeping Americans safe. Ugh.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Is it possible that MSNBC and Olbermann have sunk as low as Fox News and O'Reilly, Hannity or Beck? Say it ain't so Ardent Viper!

    ReplyDelete