Targeting the Targets
It's clear the NY Times still has not learned its lesson. Another editorial today takes a bead on another facet of the federal government, this time the Department of Homeland Security.
The Department of Homeland Security never really makes us feel all that safe.
A government list of potential terrorist targets that came to light recently is only comforting if the roundup is intended, by its very absurdity, to confound the enemy into total inaction. Among other theoretically threatened places included in the federal antiterrorism database are a provincial petting zoo, an Amish popcorn factory and such backwater assets as a tackle shop, a check casher, a doughnut maker, a flea market and, in the case of one community, a “Beach at End of a Street.”
One’s first instinct is to guffaw at this odd collection of assets whose “criticality,’’ in the words of the department’s own inspector general, “is not readily apparent.”
But it is far from laughable when one realizes that the database is used by the agency as a factor in divvying the hundreds of millions in grants to localities — including the program that dealt 40 percent cuts to two proven targets, the national capital and New York City. The agency promises clearer guidelines soon so that the states themselves can produce a more credible list.
I suspect that part of the problem is that there were some deals made between influential senators and house members and the Department's money givers. How else can you explain why an Indiana doughnut maker is considered more of a target than any number of sites in New York City. I suspect another part of the problem is that no rational guidelines were provided to the states with respect to likely targets. I mean, how else would mortuaries make it onto the list?
As to the latter, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what would make tempting targets to those who wish to harm and humiliate this nation. It seems to me that there are several classes which should be addressed. First would be those targets with symbolic importance: various buildings in Washington, DC (e.g., the Capitol and White House), the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq buildings, the Sears Tower in Chicago and the TransAmerica building in San Francisco.
The next class would be those sites where large crowds of people gather, either for a one time visit (the Super Bowl and World Series), or on a regular basis (major amusement parks, major airports, rail and bus stations, subway stations and the subways themselves, key bridges).
Another obvious class would be comprised of those places key to our national infrastructure: conventional and nuclear powerplants, oil terminals and refineries, chemical factories.
My list is hardly exhaustive (and readers are invited to add to it in the comments section) but I only spent the last ten minutes considering this. How difficult would it be for someone at the Department to compile a more complete list, with guidelines? Of course, that would assume that the Department really cares about Homeland Security when it doles out federal funds, which is certainly not a safe assumption with the current regime.
The Department of Homeland Security never really makes us feel all that safe.
A government list of potential terrorist targets that came to light recently is only comforting if the roundup is intended, by its very absurdity, to confound the enemy into total inaction. Among other theoretically threatened places included in the federal antiterrorism database are a provincial petting zoo, an Amish popcorn factory and such backwater assets as a tackle shop, a check casher, a doughnut maker, a flea market and, in the case of one community, a “Beach at End of a Street.”
One’s first instinct is to guffaw at this odd collection of assets whose “criticality,’’ in the words of the department’s own inspector general, “is not readily apparent.”
But it is far from laughable when one realizes that the database is used by the agency as a factor in divvying the hundreds of millions in grants to localities — including the program that dealt 40 percent cuts to two proven targets, the national capital and New York City. The agency promises clearer guidelines soon so that the states themselves can produce a more credible list.
I suspect that part of the problem is that there were some deals made between influential senators and house members and the Department's money givers. How else can you explain why an Indiana doughnut maker is considered more of a target than any number of sites in New York City. I suspect another part of the problem is that no rational guidelines were provided to the states with respect to likely targets. I mean, how else would mortuaries make it onto the list?
As to the latter, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what would make tempting targets to those who wish to harm and humiliate this nation. It seems to me that there are several classes which should be addressed. First would be those targets with symbolic importance: various buildings in Washington, DC (e.g., the Capitol and White House), the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq buildings, the Sears Tower in Chicago and the TransAmerica building in San Francisco.
The next class would be those sites where large crowds of people gather, either for a one time visit (the Super Bowl and World Series), or on a regular basis (major amusement parks, major airports, rail and bus stations, subway stations and the subways themselves, key bridges).
Another obvious class would be comprised of those places key to our national infrastructure: conventional and nuclear powerplants, oil terminals and refineries, chemical factories.
My list is hardly exhaustive (and readers are invited to add to it in the comments section) but I only spent the last ten minutes considering this. How difficult would it be for someone at the Department to compile a more complete list, with guidelines? Of course, that would assume that the Department really cares about Homeland Security when it doles out federal funds, which is certainly not a safe assumption with the current regime.
posted by Diane at 4:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home