More Post-Katrina Woes

FEMA is up for grabs. The Army Corps of Engineers still hasn't implemented changes and improvements, and is still finding flaws in the infrastructure, disaster response, and flood controls. DHS cannot seem to get its act together.

Army Corps Takes Steps To Fix Shortcomings Exposed By Katrina

It seems to me that if, as was the case in the Civil War, the Army Corps of Engineers was able to build numerous railroads and trestle bridges in record time (some as little as 45 days), that it shoudl have been able to correct issues arising out of Katrina and Rita... if it were given the authroity and resources to do so.

Report: FEMA Urban Rescue Teams Understaffed, Unprepared

It also seems that a full year later, while we are facing yet another cycle of hurricanes and severe storms, that FEMA should not only be prepared, but fully staffed and ready to go with a fully revamped and fully functionaly plan. How is it that Bush and his cohorts did not seem to mention this lack of preparation and staffing in any way while he was visiting the Gulf Coast on the anniversary of Katrina? Is it incompetence, denial or deliberate screwing over the public? Or is it, perhaps, all three?

The Wolf Is Inspecting The Hen House

Israel War Conduct Inquiry To Include Legal Experts

Taking a page right out of the George W. Bush handbook of "Trust me... I can protect your civil liberties," Israeli Prime Minister Olmert is assigning the investigation of Israeli conduct during its invasion of Lebanon to its own legal experts... who will not have the authority to compel testimony or subpeona secret documents, reports or after-operation reports.

One would think that such an investigation would require participation from an independent body with international legal experts, including members of the UN, NATO, the International Court, the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other organizations without a vested interest in finding Israel innocent or guilty... just finding the facts.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Monday that he will establish two inquiry committees to investigate Israel's conduct during the latest crisis in the Middle East, one to examine "the functioning of the Government, its proceedings and decision making, and anything else it sees fit to examine," and an internal military investigation to "conduct a thorough examination in order to implement the necessary changes in the preparedness of the IDF, its combat doctrine and force structuring." The government committee of inquiry will be chaired by a former head of Israel's spy agency and will include legal and military experts.

Neither of the investigations will have the power to force witness testimony, disappointing critics who have called for an independent state inquiry. Olmert dismissed those calls Monday, saying "this will not repair the defects or prevent incidents." Olmert called an independent judicial investigation a "tempting" political solution, but said that it "is not what the country needs," favoring instead "an effective, professional inquiry, to examine the issues in depth, draw conclusions, and learn lessons."

Gatekeeper Effect Destroying Education

I am a teacher. Being the eldest of a very large, dysfunctional blended (well, not so blended as affiliated) family, I was born a teacher. By the time I was 15 I was teaching Kodokan Judo to the Juniors at my dojo. At age 16 I wrote my first paper on the psychology of education, long before attending college or even thinking about being a teacher.

Some people look upon my teaching martial arts--specifically Kodokan Judo, Hombu Aikido and Ko-Tomoe Ryu Ju-Jitsu--as not being teaching. But each of these arts have a specific curriculum and were developed in Japan by educators. Kodokan Judo was developed by Dr. Jigoro Kano, who rose to the highest office in the Japanese Ministry of Education and was a member of the International Olympic Committee. Hombu Aikido was developed by "O-Sensei" (Great Teacher) Morihei Uyeshiba, who had been a member of the Japanese military, an officer with great leadership skills and a tremendous amount of charisma, and became one of the foremost teachers of martial arts, philosophy and peace in all of Japan. Ko-Tomoe Ryu Ju-Jitsu is a blended "style" of Ju-Jitsu developed by Professor Wally Jay, a Japanese-Chinese-American from Hawaii that adopted and adapted techniques from five different schools/styles of Ju-Jitsu, Kodokan Judo and Aikido.

Teaching martial arts is where I learned about "multi-level" teaching environments long before the concept began its rise to popularity in the field of education. While everyone seems to have forgotten that multi-level teaching environments were the standard in the days of the "little one-room red school house," the concept began to acquire a lot of supporters in the late 1980s and through the end of the 1990s. But all martial arts classes are multi-level teaching and learning environments. In each class--even those designated as "beginner," "intermediate" or "advanced"--there are students with differing levels of expertise, technical skill and understanding of the art, philosophy and science of the particular martial art being studied.

That is another particular of the martial arts: if it is being taught in a traditional manner, the "sensei" is charged with teaching 1) exercise and fitness, 2) nutrition and health, 3) sanitation and first aid, 4) technical skills and drills for mastering those skills, 5) social skills (courtesy) and discipline, 6) history of the specific art and of all martial arts in general, and 7) the philosophy of the martial arts.

Additionally, a sensei is challenged to continuously improve not only his/her knowledge and skill in the art, but also the skills and knowledge of teaching the art. In my day I developed drills for ukemi (the art of falling safely), numerous drills and exercises for nage waza (throwing techniques), as well as drills for ne-waza (mat techniques). Judo senseis must be familiar with the curriculum and technical requirements as set forth by the Kodokan (Mother School of Judo), the United States Judo Federation (USJF-Formerly the JBBF), the United States Judo Association (USJA-Formerly the US Air Force Judo Association), United States Judo, Inc. as well as the particular preferences of the senior instructors within the "dojo" (school). Each student presented different learning styles and abilities, so techniques had to be presented in ways that allowed each student to adopt the techniques to their own style and ability. (The research on learning styles and multiple intelligence could have been started in the Judo, Aikido or Karate-do setting rather than the traditional classroom.)

On top of all of that, the martial arts instructor had to be a coach, motivating students to achieve rank and success in competition (except in Hombu Aikido), focusing on positive motivators and disspelling class conflicts as they arose (and they arose more often than one might think).

Since those early days I have acquired considerable expertise. My military training covered fitness and nutrition in more detail than when I was a junior instructor. Additionally, I was trained as a US Navy Hospital Corpsman, which is a cross between combat medic, EMT, practical nurse, physician's assistant, medical assistant, lab technician and, at times, doctor. I was privileged to receive training from some of the finest doctors and nurses, all of whom cared more for their profession than most civilians ever could, who were more than willing to teach anyone eager enough to learn. As a result, I performed over 400 minor surgeries, initiated over 1000 IVs, drew more than 3000 tubes of blood, ordered hundreds upon hundreds of x-rays, assisted with major surgeries, conducted 2 complete autopsies, changed thousands of surgical dressings, diagnosed hundreds of patients and managed patient care in the Emergency Room, on the wards and as the section leader for the ambulance crew.

Further, I was trained as a US Naval Neuropsychiatric Technician, worked with acute psychiatric patients, drug-induced psychotics, administered psychometrics (WAIS-R, H-T-P Projectives, Rotter Sentence Completion, Otis-Lennon IQ, MMPI, Hand Aggression Tests, ASVAB), conducted over 400 emergency screenings, screened for substance abuse, completed hundreds of psycho-social histories, conducted small groups, and provided the primary interaction with psychiatric patients.

Additionally, I completed military non-resident courses in Communicable Disease in Man, Blood Component Therapy, Chemical Agent Casualties, Nursing Care, Emergency Medicine, Field Sanitation, Hospital & Clinical Design, Pharmacology, as well as the regular in-service training conducted monthly by hospital staff.

Then I went to school to get my degree in Psychology (Clinical Emphasis) and Sociology (Social Work Emphasis) with minor equivalents in Education, Communication and Management.

Somewhere along the line I immersed myself in learning computer applications, legal studies, philosophy and ethics, advanced education topics, and a whole lot more.

In 1995 I submitted a portfolio for consideration by the Massachusetts Department of Education Certification Review Panel (CRP) (an alternative route to teacher certification) to obtain my teacher certification/licensure. The CRP consisted of two professors of education from colleges and universities, as well as a sitting superintendent holding a PhD or EdD. In my case two of the three members were sitting superintendents and all three were professor-ranked educators. One of the panel members was a professor at Boston University. Another was a professor at Bridewater State College. The third was a professor emeritus from the University of Massachusetts. A fourth member of the panel was a certified teacher who was a member of the Massachuestts Department of Education staff.

The interview process conducted by the CRP was rigorous and exhaustive. My entire portfolio was reviewed. Additional and supplemental materials were requested (and I had them on hand). Ordinarily, if the CRP decides to award alternative certification, the lowest ranking certification (Provisional) is offered. In my case, I was awarded the second tier of a three-tier system (Provisional with Advanced Standing), which was an unusual move by the CRP. It was so unusual that the DOE staffer had to call the home office to see if it could be done by the CRP. I was informed that if I had completed a Master Degree in any field of study they would have awarded me the highest tier (Professional).

My certification is for grades K-12, which is also an unusual award by the CRP. I am certified to teach Social Studies (Grades 5-12), Business (Grades 5-12), Health (Grades 5-12) and Communication & Performing Arts (Grades K-12). Under the rules and regulations existing at the time of my certification/licensure, any certification for the K-12 level awarded modified all the other endorsements for the K-12 level as well.

My certification is still valid because it was awarded for five years of employment as a teacher in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Since I have not been able to find a teaching gig in Massachusetts, my license remains valid. I have also kept up my professional development requirements over these many years as well. Additionally, even though it was not required, I took the Praxis II PPST and achieved scores in the 92-95 percentile in all three areas of the test, which covered basic skills, professional knowledge and teaching skills.

I am an accomplished educator with experience teaching at the K-12, undergraduate, graduate and career skills level. My colleagues and supervisors have acknowledged my skills, abilities, talents and leadership. My students--in all settings--have achieved higher scores on standardized and ad hoc testing. I have worked on several projects to develop new schools and school districts, as well as an online edducational portal.

But I can't seem to find a job as of late. In Massachusetts the demand for teachers in Science, Special Education, Bilingual Education (up until three years ago) and other specialty areas is high. But the demand for Social Studies, Health, Business and/or Communications is almost nil. In one interview for a Social Studies position I was informed that I was one of ten interviewed for the position, but that there were over 250 applicants for the one job.

Now that I live in Indiana, I cannot find a teaching job. Indiana refuses to grant me reciprocity for my teaching certificate because they do not recognize the CRP process. Illinois will recognize my credentials, but most of the districts in my locale have adopted residency requirements. This is especially true of the Chicago and Cook County School Districts... and I don't know too many teachers that can afford to live anywhere in Chicago... and only a few that can afford to live in Cook County. Michigan will apparently recognize my credentials for reciprocity, but all the jobs for Micihgan schools are in districts near Detroit or other larger cities too far north to be considered.

I have been looking for work in Arkansas because my wife is from there and would like to move closer to her family that still lives there. The wall that is presented there occurs first in the application process. The reciprocity paperwork is confusing, tedious, takes a painstaking amount of time and over $400 in fees for processing, fingerprinting, background check and other "stuff." Similar to my experiences in Massachusetts, there is a great demand--and a willingness to assist/bypass the application process--for Special Education... but Social Studies, Business, Health and Communication are not in high demand.

The way I see it, there is a gatekeeper effect in place and it is harming out education system. While the New York Times just reported that teachers are being imported from foreign nations in a large number of states and districts for special education positions, no one is assisting Americans to become American teachers. The unions also aid in keeping a large number of qualified--and quite possibly better--teachers from entering the profession. Then, too, most unions act as if teaching was more of a blue collar job than a profession requiring advanced training and professional knowledge. We are not allowing our schools to hire the best teachers. In fact, in my experience, I think we are deliberately keeping the best teachers out of the profession.

This weekend I watched the "Ron Clark Story" and saw some of these gatekeeper dynamics portayed in the movie. But a review of most dramas about teaching illustrates the effect in historical fashion. Some of the movies that come to mind include "The Blackboard Jungle,""Up The Down Staircase," "Mr. Holland's Opus," "Stand And Deliver," "Lean On Me," "Dangerous Minds," "Dead Poets' Society," "Renaissance Man," and "Mona Lisa Smile." All of these movies have some dynamic of keeping teachers at a certain level of achievement, blocking innovation and discouraging teachers from certain employment situations. While all of these are dramas and should not be considered factual, there is always some truth in drama, even those that are complete fiction.

We are not allowing the best into our school systems. And that is a damned shame, not only because I cannot seem to find a teaching gig, but because I know some damn fine educators that cannot get their ticket.

The Ultimate Insult: Bush Visits The Gulf Coast

Bush Visits Gulf Coast, Stressing Progress

I cannot help but think that Bush visiting the Gulf Coast one year after Katrina and Rita devastated is insulting, crude, crass and the ultimate of denial of responsibility for making the disaster multiple times worse than it should have been.

I refer my readers to my post on "Katrina Realities" which calls the failures of our government to task.

Now, for the sake of a "photo op," Bush is visiting the regions hardest hit by Katrina and Rita, as well as the lack of adequate and competent response from all levels of government.

Of course, in typical fashion, only looks at the positive... and continues to deny the realities and failures created by DHS, FEMA, and other governmental agencies all the way down the line.

NEW ORLEANS, Aug. 28 — On the eve of the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina’s strike here, President Bush returned to the devastated region on Monday promising to continue federal assistance and, with his presidency still under the shadow of the slow response to the storm, eagerly pointed out signs of progress in reconstructing the Gulf Coast.

But as another storm rolled toward Florida, with thousands of victims from Hurricane Katrina still uprooted, Mr. Bush admitted there were “a lot of problems left.”

Winding his way through tattered towns in Mississippi on his way here, Mr. Bush spent the day demonstrating empathy and optimism, touring rebuilt areas and meeting with local officials and residents in his 13th trip to the area since the storm.

The journey was part of a continuing effort to recast his image from last year, when Mr. Bush stayed on the West Coast before cutting short his vacation to deal with one of the most significant crises of his administration. His popularity was severely damaged after the storm, which killed about 1,500 people and flooded most of New Orleans, and it has never fully recovered.

In sweltering midday heat, his shirt soaked with sweat, Mr. Bush told a group of Biloxi, Miss., residents that he knew the rebuilding was so slow that to some it felt as if nothing was happening.

Still, Mr. Bush said, “For a fellow who was here and now a year later comes back, things are changing.”

“I feel the quiet sense of determination that’s going to shape the future of Mississippi,” he said.

In an event with echoes of his prime-time speech in Jackson Square here last September, Mr. Bush spoke in a working-class neighborhood in Biloxi against a backdrop of neatly reconstructed homes. But just a few feet away, outside the scene captured by the camera, stood gutted houses with wires dangling from ceilings. A tattered piece of crime-scene tape hung from a tree in the field where Mr. Bush spoke. A toilet sat on its side in the grass.

After a dinner Monday night with New Orleans officials, including Mayor C. Ray Nagin, Mr. Bush is scheduled to tour city neighborhoods on Tuesday and deliver another speech. He is also planning to return to Jackson Square for a memorial service at St. Louis Cathedral.

As the president spoke in Biloxi, he was flanked by Mississippi’s two senators, Trent Lott and Thad Cochran and Gov. Haley Barbour, all three of them Republicans, and Don Powell, the Gulf Coast reconstruction coordinator. Watching from the sidelines was Mr. Bush’s chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, whose presence was a reminder of the reshuffling at the White House after the former chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., failed to manage the storm crisis.

Nearby, along the ocean, ravaged antebellum homes and churches dotted the waterfront. The beach from Gulfport, Miss., to Biloxi, was deserted. Debris hung from trees and motels stood shuttered. Blue tarpaulins still patched the roofs of most dwellings. Written in green spray paint on a fence around a home in Biloxi was “You loot, I shoot.”

In Washington and around the country Monday, Hurricane Katrina continued to occupy a prominent place in the political arena. Both the White House and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill issued “fact sheets” with competing assertions about the rate of progress and the nation’s ability to cope with another disaster.

“One year later, neither the tragedy Katrina caused — the flooding of New Orleans and the devastation of the Gulf Coast — nor the tragedy that it exposed — the extent of the federal government’s failure to provide a life of security and dignity to all of our citizens — have been adequately addressed,” Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, said in a statement.

In late August of 2005, as the hurricane approached and scientists warned of a potential disaster, Mr. Bush was on vacation at his ranch outside Crawford, Tex., where the most pressing problem was an antiwar protest.

When the storm actually hit and his advisers began to realize the scope of the catastrophe, Mr. Bush was in Southern California on a campaign-style travel swing. Images of a remote president playing guitar on a military base, then later posing for a picture as he peered out the window of Air Force One as it flew over the devastation helped fuel the perception that Mr. Bush failed to respond adequately to the storm.

This year, Mr. Bush is also returning to Crawford — his final stop on Tuesday — before heading out to campaign in Arkansas, Tennessee and Utah this week. The overnight stay comes after an abbreviated vacation, in Crawford earlier this month and at his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Me., last weekend, and two days of commemorating the hurricane anniversary.

Speaking to reporters Monday after visiting United States Marine Inc., a company in Gulfport that builds military boats, Mr. Bush predicted that the rebuilding effort would take “years, not months.”

“There will be a momentum, momentum will be gathered,” the president said. “Houses will begat jobs, jobs will begat houses.”

But, he continued: “It’s hard to describe the devastation down here. It was massive in its destruction, and it spared nobody. United States Senator Trent Lott had a fantastic house overlooking the bay. I know because I sat in it with he and his wife. And now it’s completely obliterated. There’s nothing.”

Intimidation Goes Down To The Bottom Levels Of Our Society

With all of our national and international news on the "War on Terror," it is easy to overlook the smaller moments of intimidation that occurs in our society. Those of us who grew up during the latter end of the struggle for civil rights in the US--those of us that can remember the riots in Watts, Newark, Detroit, as well as the March on Washington and the speeches of MLK, Jr.--we know how the local police can intimidate and over-step their bounds.

Today, while taking pictures of a public event--an event occurring at a public park and open to the public--I was approached by an off-duty police officer, after taking a picture of several police officers participating in the event--and asked the purpose of my photography. I merely responded that I was taking background photography with the possibility of freelancing one or two pictures to a local newspaper. The off-duty officer then asked me the following question: "What's the law regarding freelance photography?"

While I did not miss a beat in my answer, informing him that as long as it was a public event on public property and I was not acting in a criminal matter, there was no law against taking pictures, it was clear that he was attempting to intimidate me. In my assessment, this guy was trying to push me into a psychological corner and throw his "authority" at me. When I did not buy into it, he walked away.

On the surface of the interaction, one could not say that he had done anything wrong. No law, rule or procedure was breached in the exchange. But it was intimidation and it was intended to be such. The challenge was not so much to my right to take pictures, but my right to even be present within the park.

The fear and intimidation in our society reaches way down to the local level. Our culture of fear is taking over our culture of freedom and liberty... and as a native-born American citizen, a veteran of two branches of military service, and as a teacher, it shames me.

Labor Law Is Now Even More Confusing

Maddened by Makeup:
Gender-Based Appearance Policies, Such As Makeup Requirements, Have Some Employees Donning War Paint

As if we needed another issue to muddy the waters of labor law, workplace sexual harassment, or enlarge the gender wars in the workplace, now comes a case where the requirement to wear makeup while serving as a bartender at Harrah's...but only if you are a woman.

A few years back I worked at a campus that required men to wear a tie but did not require women to wear a tie. I hate wearing a tie and this policy was not explained to me until I was on the job for almost two months. So, I almost quit. The solution was to allow me to wear a western-style bolo in place of a tie. But I sure could have used this approach... and the women among the faculty would have loved taking the company to task over pantyhose.

Lipstick, mascara, face powder.

Of such things is litigation made.

Darlene Jespersen, a female bartender at Harrah's, who was discharged for refusing to wear makeup in accordance with her employer's dress and grooming policy, filed a Title VII sex discrimination lawsuit.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals initially affirmed the district court's rejection of her claims that the policy was more burdensome to women, as well as unlawful sex stereotyping. After en banc reconsideration, the 9th Circuit recently reversed itself and held that a dress and grooming policy based on sex stereotypes violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2002e et seq., although Jespersen failed to show that Harrah's policy was discriminatory, Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co., Inc., 444 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006).

The concept of sex stereotyping enlarges the scope of challenges to dress and grooming policies; such challenges have been raised by employees in every conceivable protected category. As our economy increasingly relies on customer-facing jobs in retail, hospitality and other service industries, employers need to know their rights to regulate employee appearance.

Recognizing that an employee's appearance affects customer perception of the employer, courts have long upheld an employer's "fundamental right" to regulate employee dress and grooming, Fagan v. Nat'l Cash Register Co., 481 F.2d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Some courts have noted an employer's right to demand that employees with customer contact be not only well-groomed, but attractive, Marks v. Nat'l. Communications Assn., Inc., 72 F.Supp.2d 322 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), although the Supreme Court of California has declined to decide whether requiring employees to be physically attractive is discriminatory, Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005).

As a practical matter, however, employers with a specific idea of attractiveness may well end up discriminating against a particular racial or ethnic group or older employees and applicants. For instance, the sex discrimination claims of an ex-employee, whose manager had repeatedly stated that "sex sells" and dressed attractive young female employees in skimpy costumes, were dismissed, because plaintiff, an older woman, had not been required to wear the costumes; however, her age claims survived a summary judgment motion, Holopirek v. Kennedy and Coe, LLC, 303 F.Supp.2d 1223 (D. Kan. 2004).

A NEW TWIST

Sex-differentiated grooming policies started provoking litigation long before Jespersen. That an employer does not violate Title VII by requiring male employees to wear their hair short, even though female employees may wear their hair either long or short, is settled beyond dispute, Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp., 139 F.3d 1385 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1000 (1998). While wondering whether Title VII reaches such mutable characteristics as hair length at all, courts have consistently held that an employer may impose sex-differentiated dress and grooming requirements which reflect community standards, Willingham v. Macon Tel. Publ'g Co., 507 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1975), as long as each sex is equally burdened, e.g., stricter weight limitations for female flight attendants than for male flight attendants violated Title VII, Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 914 (2001).

Jespersen has given this string of cases a new twist. The facts are straightforward. A casino had maintained an informal dress and grooming policy for its beverage servers, but at some point decided it needed to adopt and strictly enforce a more formal policy.

Under the new policy, both men and women were required to wear a white shirt, black pants, black vest and black bow tie, with low-heeled black shoes. As for personal grooming, both men and women were required to be well-groomed and "appealing to the eye," i.e., attractive. Neither men nor women were allowed to wear "faddish" hairstyles.

However, there were additional requirements applicable separately to each sex. Men were required to keep their hair and fingernails short; men specifically could not wear makeup.

In contrast, there were several additional requirements for women. Women could wear their hair long or short, but either way, they were required to always wear their hair teased, curled or styled, and, if long, worn down. Nail polish had to be clear, red, pink or white. Jespersen did not contest these additional requirements. Her sole focus was on the following, which, for reasons not explained in any of the decisions, was adopted after the initial policy and subsequently abandoned: Women had to wear foundation or powder, mascara, blush and lipstick at all times.

When Your Campaign Is Faltering... Invent More Fear

Wanted: Scarier Intelligence

Some of us have noticed that there has been an increase in the amount of fear mongering being done by the Republicans in the face of losing propisitions in the mid-term elections. When in doubt, it seems that the Republicans seek out some way to hype up the fear factor within our society. The Bush gang is once again hitting the bricks and beating the drums about how withdrawal from Iraq will enhance the standing of terrorists in the world. The nuclear capabilities of Iran are also being hyped up and made to appear as if we are going to be attacked at any moment, despite the fact that we are more likely to be attacked by North Korea, Pakistan or India, all of which possess nuclear arms now while Iran is just in the business of enriching uranium.

I don't mean to downplay the importance of keeping nuclear capabilities away from the idiots currently running Iran, but in terms of immediacy, we face real threats by nations that are so politically unsecure that the threat of using nuclear weapons is real in the immediate sense. Pakistan and India are so unstable that a coup could occur at any moment, and the nuclear weaponry existing in each country is a threat to the entire world.

Then, of course, there is North Korea... who can no longer be swayed by its only real ally in the world, China. The family of dictator nut cases running that nation is so intent upon proving to the world that it is a player in geopolitics that it will continue to starve its people while maintaining a military that rivals the US, UK and Chinese forces.

The last thing this country needs as it heads into this election season is another attempt to push the intelligence agencies to hype their conclusions about the threat from a Middle Eastern state.

That’s what happened in 2002, when the administration engineered a deeply flawed document on Iraq that reshaped intelligence to fit President Bush’s policy. And history appeared to be repeating itself this week, when the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, released a garishly illustrated and luridly written document that is ostensibly dedicated to “helping the American people understand” that Iran’s fundamentalist regime and its nuclear ambitions pose a strategic threat to the United States.

It’s hard to imagine that Mr. Hoekstra believes there is someone left in this country who does not already know that. But the report obviously has different aims. It is partly a campaign document, a product of the Republican strategy of scaring Americans into allowing the G.O.P. to retain control of Congress this fall. It fits with the fearmongering we’ve heard lately — like President Bush’s attempt the other day to link the Iraq war to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

But even more worrisome, the report seems intended to signal the intelligence community that the Republican leadership wants scarier assessments that would justify a more confrontational approach to Tehran. It was not the work of any intelligence agency, or the full intelligence panel, or even the subcommittee that ostensibly drafted it. The Washington Post reported that it was written primarily by a former C.I.A. official known for his view that the assessments on Iran are not sufficiently dire.

While the report contains no new information, it does dish up dire-sounding innuendo, mostly to leave the impression that Iran is developing nuclear weapons a lot faster than intelligence agencies have the guts to admit. It also tosses in a few conspiracy theories, like the unsupported assertion that Iran engineered the warfare between Israel and Hezbollah. And it complains that America’s spy agencies are too cautious, that they “shy away from provocative conclusions.”

Then there is Israel. A nuclear-capable nation that can't seem to follow the rules, even those imposed by its primary arms supplier, the United States of America.

The State Department is investigating whether Israel’s use of American-made cluster bombs in southern Lebanon violated secret agreements with the United States that restrict when it can employ such weapons, two officials said.

The investigation by the department’s Office of Defense Trade Controls began this week, after reports that three types of American cluster munitions, anti-personnel weapons that spray bomblets over a wide area, have been found in many areas of southern Lebanon and were responsible for civilian casualties.

Gonzalo Gallegos, a State Department spokesman, said, “We have heard the allegations that these munitions were used, and we are seeking more information.” He declined to comment further.

Several current and former officials said that they doubted the investigation would lead to sanctions against Israel but that the decision to proceed with it might be intended to help the Bush administration ease criticism from Arab governments and commentators over its support of Israel’s military operations. The investigation has not been publicly announced; the State Department confirmed it in response to questions.

In addition to investigating use of the weapons in southern Lebanon, the State Department has held up a shipment of M-26 artillery rockets, a cluster weapon, that Israel sought during the conflict, the officials said.

The inquiry is likely to focus on whether Israel properly informed the United States about its use of the weapons and whether targets were strictly military. So far, the State Department is relying on reports from United Nations personnel and nongovernmental organizations in southern Lebanon, the officials said.

David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy, said, “We have not been informed about any such inquiry, and when we are we would be happy to respond.”

Officials were granted anonymity to discuss the investigation because it involves sensitive diplomatic issues and agreements that have been kept secret for years.

The agreements that govern Israel’s use of American cluster munitions go back to the 1970’s, when the first sales of the weapons occurred, but the details of them have never been publicly confirmed. The first one was signed in 1976 and later reaffirmed in 1978 after an Israeli incursion into Lebanon. News accounts over the years have said that they require that the munitions be used only against organized Arab armies and clearly defined military targets under conditions similar to the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973.

A Congressional investigation after Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon found that Israel had used the weapons against civilian areas in violation of the agreements. In response, the Reagan administration imposed a six-year ban on further sales of cluster weapons to Israel.

Israeli officials acknowledged soon after their offensive began last month that they were using cluster munitions against rocket sites and other military targets. While Hezbollah positions were frequently hidden in civilian areas, Israeli officials said their intention was to use cluster bombs in open terrain.

Bush administration officials warned Israel to avoid civilian casualties, but they have lodged no public protests against its use of cluster weapons. American officials say it has not been not clear whether the weapons, which are also employed by the United States military, were being used against civilian areas and had been supplied by the United States. Israel also makes its own types of cluster weapons.

But a report released Wednesday by the United Nations Mine Action Coordination Center, which has personnel in Lebanon searching for unexploded ordnance, said it had found unexploded bomblets, including hundreds of American types, in 249 locations south of the Litani River.

The report said American munitions found included 559 M-42’s, an anti-personnel bomblet used in 105-millimeter artillery shells; 663 M-77’s, a submunition found in M-26 rockets; and 5 BLU-63’s, a bomblet found in the CBU-26 cluster bomb. Also found were 608 M-85’s, an Israeli-made submunition.

The unexploded submunitions being found in Lebanon are probably only a fraction of the total number dropped. Cluster munitions can contain dozens or even hundreds of submunitions designed to explode as they scatter around a wide area. They are very effective against rocket-launcher units or ground troops.

The Lebanese government has reported that the conflict killed 1,183 people and wounded 4,054, most of them civilians. The United Nations reported this week that the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon from cluster munitions, land mines and unexploded bombs stood at 30 injured and eight killed.

A Perfect Example Of Intelligence Gone Wrong In A Climate Of Fear

A (Terror) Fish Story

The Bush gang has us so paranoid that we are willing to call in the feds on the least tidbit of data. We are living in such a climate of fear that we are throwing reason and careful analysis--as well as several reasonable investigatory steps--out the window. In an era where the USA Patriot Act allows anyone to drop a dime on anyone else, and this results in full blown law enforcement reaction, we need to rethink our apporach.

We’ve been fascinated by the story of how Jim Bensman of Alton, Ill., went to a hearing about fish and wound up as a potential terrorism suspect.

As Cornelia Dean reported in The Times, the Army Corps of Engineers held a meeting in Mr. Bensman’s neighborhood to talk about helping those fish swim around the locks and dams it has constructed on the Mississippi River over the years. There was a PowerPoint presentation on various options. One — clearly not the Corps’s favorite — was to eliminate a dam in East Alton. To illustrate that idea, the presentation included a picture of a dam being dynamited.

Mr. Bensman rose later to support removing the dam. Big mistake.

A local paper reported that Mr. Bensman told the Corps he “would like to see the dam blown up.”

A Corps security officer read the report. He decided that Mr. Bensman was threatening a public facility. He notified the G-men.

An F.B.I. agent then contacted Mr. Bensman, who was surprised to learn that federal investigators believed a terrorist might announce his plans at a public hearing of the Army Corps of Engineers.

When the agent said he wanted to visit his home, it occurred to Mr. Bensman that he needed a lawyer. At that point, Mr. Bensman said, the agent threatened to “put you down as not cooperating.”

All this started because Mr. Bensman believes the Army Corps builds way too many locks and dams on the Mississippi for the convenience of boating interests. This page has always thought so too.

But not in any way, shape or form that involves any kind of sabotage whatsoever.

It's Nice To Be Affirmed

In Christian Theology, especially among Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal Catholics, there is a concept called "affirmation." In this process someone within the church will "prophesize" something as a message from God, usually coming in the form of an impromptu piece of Scripture, speaking in tongues, or a discussion of a topic for the prayer meeting, and then sometime later--sometimes immediate and sometimes not--something will occur to confirm and affirm the message that was offered during a prayer meeting or counseling session.

What is sort of neat about this process is that a message not affirmed is dismissed. Those messages that are affirmed are then deemed worthy of deeper investigation, contemplation and study... and perhaps even some action.

For months upon months I have been discussing the uselessness of so many things done in the name of national security, homeland security and especially airline security. I have spoke to the issue of layering security efforts, putting into place the obvious "primary layers" of security first, then resorting to technology and intelligence, including profiling as a deeper layer of the security process. But I have advocated that profiling, data mining and other steps currently being employed as primary security efforts are useless because they are being used as the outer layers of an overall ineffective security system.

I have been affirmed in these last few days. First there was the story of two idiots trespassing at a Boston Area LNG storage tank, illustrating that the most basic of security efforts were not being implemented. Now comes a story that identifies "profiling" as not only being ineffective as a primary security layer, but quite possibly an effort that increases the risks of terrorism.

Search and Defend

THE profiling of behavioral cues to identify terrorists is the latest trend in American airport security. The Transportation Security Administration began experimenting with the technique last December at a dozen airports, and after this month’s reported bomb plot in Britain, agency officials said they wanted to train and redeploy hundreds of routine screeners at airports across the nation by the end of next year.

Should anyone be experimenting with security techniques in the actual place where security is needed with increasing urgency? Shouldn't we be putting PROVEN methods into effect first? Shouldn't we be redoubling our efforts on the basic layers of security before we invest time, energy, training resources and money into unproven techniques? What are these folks thinking? Do they think we are all dumb enough to believe that a beehive of activity is the equivalent of good security?

There’s no question we’d all like to improve airport security. But investing heavily in seemingly high-tech methods like behavioral profiling isn’t the answer, and may make air travel less safe on the whole.

To understand why, consider that just a few days after the introduction of stringent carry-on limits following the British bomb scare, a 59-year-old woman from Vermont boarded a Washington-bound jet at London Heathrow Airport, became unruly, and caused the plane to be diverted to Boston. A careful search discovered that she’d brought on the plane several cigarette lighters, matches, a screwdriver, hand lotion and bottled liquids.

How she managed to get those items through heightened screening is still unclear. What is clear, though, is that this passenger helped expose the Achilles’ heel in airport security: the basic search.

Exactly what I have been saying for three years! We cannot apply unproven techniques when we haven't properly applied proven techniques. We have not implemented proven technologies for detecting chemicals and explosives. We have not fully and properly trained the existing screeners and security personnel. The luggage moving through our "checked" baggage compartments still pose a major risk because it is not screened properly. But we are throwing good money after bad by implementing unproven methods and measures... as well as a few ridiculous ones as well: to wit, eliminating fluid containers.

Behavioral profiling — especially the cut-rate version the T.S.A. has in store for us — is not going to help in this respect. Learning to defeat poorly trained screeners is a lot easier than learning to fly a jumbo jet. The likely result is that our newly minted behavioral detectives will be singling out and searching the wrong passengers.

Behavioral profiling is by no means new. In the mid-1960’s, Paul Ekman, a professor at the University of California at San Francisco, began researching how facial muscle movement relates to emotions. He noted several thousand facial muscle combinations and put together the Facial Action Coding System — an intricate, 500-page catalog of facial expressions.

Since then, there have been many studies of the ability to detect truth and deception, but they have been largely disappointing. A review of the literature published in 2000 found that in experiments where subjects were trying to detect whether others were telling the truth or lying, the subjects had an overall success rate of 56.6 percent — slightly better than a coin toss. In the studies that broke down their data, it was found that subjects were able to determine that they were being lied to only 44 percent of the time — meaning that they would have done better closing their eyes and guessing.

Therapists, people with years upon years of behavioral training and developed skills of psychological assessment, are wrong about 30% of the time. On my best days as a substance abuse clinician I could be wrong as much as 10% of the time, on my worst days I could be wrong 100% of the time. If people with specific long-term training (years!!!!) in behavior can be wrong that often, how much more wrong will security screeners trained by a few seminars and a few weeks of intensive training sessions be on average?

Police officers--including experienced investigators--make mistakes in such judgments as well. Police officers generally require some college training in the behavioral disciplines, including sociology, psychology and criminal justice, as well as an intensive "boot camp style" police academy experience. All of my law enforcement colleagues and contacts will certainly agree that mistakes are made in the process of investigating crimes and assessing suspects. The FBI behavioral units--the so-called profilers--make mistakes as well... and these are the best trained criminal assessment professionals in the world.

So how effective can a few weeks of training in this area really be? Add to this the fact that the majority of screeners are not intensely trained in most things. In Boston, for instance, they have my niece working in baggage handling and screening. My niece is a criminal justice major and a decent human being with a committed sense of working to a high degree of professionalism. She is also a big girl with a sense of putting people into their place (she is the only girl in her family and has had to keep her brothers in line most of her life). But she will tell you that despite her best efforts, the system in place at Logan International Airport is full of security holes... and most of them come from the lack of training and proper supervision of personnel.

A few studies have found that certain elite, highly trained professional groups may beat chance under specific conditions; however, a comprehensive survey of those also concluded that their accuracy rates overall were unremarkable. As Dr. Ekman himself noted in 1999, almost all the studies “have found that accuracy is close to chance.”

What this means is that on average, even the best trained profilers have a 50-50 chance of identifying a potential threat using behavioral profiling techniques. Proper basic security methods have, on average, over an 80% chance of identifying a threat... if the security folks are fully and properly trained and supervised appropriately.

Some anecdotal evidence is becoming mythic, but it’s largely misleading. The most common involves Ahmed Ressam, the millennium bomber, who was apprehended at the Canadian border in 1999 trying to smuggle bomb-making equipment. Mr. Ressam became a suspect when a customs agent felt that his itinerary seemed unusual and that he was acting oddly.

Many credit his arrest to a profiling plan put in effect by Raymond Kelly, then the head of United States Customs and now New York City’s police commissioner. True, under Mr. Kelly, the Customs search success rate improved by 25 percent while the overall number of searches decreased by 75 percent. But his profile rested on six factors, only two of which were behavioral. The four other factors involved canine searches, incorrect or suspicious paperwork and specific intelligence or contraband implicating the suspect. It’s unclear how much of the improved success turned on behavioral cues alone.

Okay, let's get real. Canine searches have been studied and proven to be effective about half-the time. Drug dogs have identified major drug caches and also missed on unannounced tests of their ability to identify test quantities of drugs. Bomb sniffing dogs are also under scrutiny. Several courts are beginning to question whether or not a canine "hit" actually creates a condition of probable cause and I expect that a good defense lawyer will challenge the validity and constitutionality of such searches given the empirical data that indicates a dog is about 50-50 as well.

Suspicious paperwork is a methodology that requires specific training on thousands of different documents, including passport standards for over 140 nations, visas and birth documents. The likelihood of an under-trained TSA agent catching a criminal or terrorist using this technique is minimal. A properly trained customs or immigration officer might be able to do so about 50% of the time... especially when you consider the volume of traffic at our airports and other entry points.

It must also be pointed out that folks arriving by charter or personal boat are only required to fill out a landing card with the local port or harbor master. In my hometown of Lynn, Massachusetts, the position of harbor master is all too often a political appointee with almost no police training and even less in terms of evaluating the accuracy and integrity of international documents.

It is noteworthy that while Commisioner Kelly was able to increase the effectiveness of searching passengers and their baggage by 25% (and it doesn't state what the starting point was--it could have been 0%, 30% 70%), the number of actual searched decreased by 75% (again, no starting numbers). What this says to me that while we increased the effectiveness of the screeners, we decreased the effectiveness of screening. But it is a fact that basic searching and screening is the most effective tool in the TSA aresenal... and it is the technique that is given the least amount of attention.

The remarkable track record of the security force at Ben-Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv — no successful hijackings ever— is also often chalked up to behavioral profiling, but that too is naïve. For three decades, the airport has had intensive security practices and a sky marshal program. All departing passengers are interviewed and subjected to one-on-one searches that, according to Rafi Ron, former head of security at Ben-Gurion, take an average of 57 minutes per person.

Israel is thought to have had the most success with behavioral profiling. But again consider how the Israelis do it: they recruit their officers mostly from the military, subject them to stringent tests in order to weed out all but those with above-average intelligence and particularly strong personality types, and give them nine weeks of training in behavior recognition.

They blame the Israeli success on profiling, but the truth is that it is an appropriate layering of security methods that is effective. The Israelis are using chemical and explosive sniffing technologies. They are using profiling. But first and foremost they are using effective searches and interviews... security basics. But they also use a hell of a lot more security officers and it takes almost an hour to load passengers onto a plane.

It certainly seems like the Israeli approach operates as an extension of a police state. Which is not necessarily all that effective... after all, how many bombs have terrorists set off in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Hebron and elsewhere?

This is a far cry from the T.S.A.’s program: recruits are routine screeners, required only to have a high school degree and a criminal background check; they are given four days of classroom training in observation and questioning techniques, three days of field practice, then sent out on the job.

Rather than divert hundreds of screeners and untold dollars to high-tech fantasies, we need to invest those resources in hiring more routine screeners and giving them better training in basic searches.

Four days of training and a high school diploma separates the average passenger from a suspect. That doesn't reassure me that our nation is doing all that can be done to prevent future terrorism. I suppose this is better than no security at all, but not by much.

If we want to change the system, a better idea would be to eliminate most carry-ons and emulate high-security prisons. In my experience, most prisons operate the same way: first I check my briefcase, overcoat, belt, cellphone and all unnecessary items at the reception. I then take everything out of my pockets — wallet, pen and paper. A guard conducts a thorough pat-down search and physically inspects my property and shoes. We’re done in less than a minute.

I am not sure I would fly under those conditions. Do I want to be treated like a criminal or inmate just because I choose to fly from Boston to Chicago? Maybe this is the government's secret plan to boost sales on Amtrak, which by the way doesn't require you to dump your liquids before boarding the train.

Sure, this would not be 100 percent foolproof. But, in combination with our sky marshal program, it would be far more likely to prevent future terrorist hijackings than giving a bunch of unqualified screeners a cursory education in face reading.

Our sky marshall program is currently a joke. We had a better sky marshall program in the 1970s when we were experiencing hijackings on a regular basis. There have been numerous cuts to the training and manning of the sky marshall program over the years, all of which have been due to politics rather than effective policy or decision-making.

Bernard E. Harcourt, a law professor at the University of Chicago, is the author of the forthcoming “Against Prediction: Profiling, Policing and Punishing in an Actuarial Age.”

Thanks Professor Harcourt... I needed the affirmation

Major Oops At QWEST... Is The Apology Sincere Or A Cover-Up?

Qwest On Data Retention Laws: Oops

Having worked with QWEST as a vendor for RCN, a broadband cable and bundled services provider, and having QWEST executives on the RCN board, I know something about the corporate culture. While QWEST makes a lot of mistakes in the area of servicing their customers and keeping their side of the Internet backbone up and running, their executives--and especially their lawyer executives--are not known for making mistakes. While I am not a conspiracy theory nut, I can add two plus two and arive at the sum of four. There is something here that QWEST, the federal government, and other telecommunication service providers are not telling us. And we must remember that it was these very same telecom companies that kept collecting a three-dollar a month tax to pay off the Spanish-American War way past the time that the debt was paid... so a record of collusion with the federal government--even if by default rather than a malicious and deliberate intent, already exists.

Broadband provider Qwest Communications International said Wednesday that it made a mistake when one of its lawyers endorsed federal legislation requiring Internet providers to keep records of customers' behavior.

Jennifer Mardosz, Qwest's corporate counsel and chief privacy officer, said in an interview with CNET News.com that she misspoke during a panel discussion organized by the Progress and Freedom Foundation in Aspen, Colo., the day before.

While lawyers are known for lying (not all lawyers, but enough to make the stereotype work because it reveals enough of a truth), they are not known for making such public mistakes. I have yet to meet the lawyer--unless he/she was drug-addicted or involved in criminal activities--that was not hyper-meticulous about what they say and how they represent their client(s). I often kid my lawyer friends that it takes them four days to accept an offer that is 1000% in their favor because they are so intent upon being super-careful in the process. Also, lawyers are not noted for trusting others, which is why most lawyers insist on reviewing the work of other lawyers, even those that are there trusted friends, colleagues and co-workers. If you've ever wondered how a law firm generates so many billable hours, the answer is pretty simple... they review everything that comes across their desk as if it were an attack on their legitimacy and integrity, which requires them to bill for the time to conduct the review.

So I am not inclined to accept Mardosz's word on this matter. She must have known what would be discussed on the panel and fully prepared for the role as a panel member. At least she should have--and if not, she will probably be fired. What happened here was that one of the cats escaped from the bag... and Mardosz was the one that let the string loose at the top of the bag.

"I just completely misspoke there," Mardosz said. During the panel discussion, she said Qwest "absolutely" supports House of Representatives legislation sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette mandating data retention--a requirement that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said will aid in terrorism and child exploitation investigations.

"I associated (DeGette's) name with the female Colorado legislator that introduced the state legislation," Mardosz said. "That was just a pure and honest mistake that I made."

Mardosz said that instead of embracing data retention legislation, Qwest was skeptical of mandates from Congress. "There is no need for it, because companies are already doing the right thing," she said.

QWEST doesn't make those kind of mistakes. Never mind that lawyers are not prone to these types of mistakes, QWEST doesn't make these types of mistakes. The PR and legal spin that QWEST puts into all of its efforts is tremendous. I am sure that when this cat was let loose, Mardosz was called on the carpet.

On Tuesday she said during the panel discussion: "We support legislation related to data retention." One industry source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press, said Qwest had backed the Colorado legislation earlier this year.

This is more likely the case. Not only does QWEST back the Colorado legislation, it also backs the federal legislative efforts as well. The QWEST board is filled with conservative Republicans that have made a concerted effort with other telecom industry leaders to pry, entice and manipulate legislators in directions consistently favorable to broadband providers, backbone providers, telephony providers, etc. I am willing to bet that the debt of favors that they have amassed along the way has come back to roost. The federal government has called in a few markers behind the scenes and QWEST, like AT&T, Sprint, AOL-Time/Warner and others, are falling into line with the feds so that there string of favorable legislation will continue. The gravy train must be resupplied if the telecoms expect to continue consuming from the trough.

The original version of the Colorado bill required Internet providers to "maintain, for at least 180 days after assignment, a record of the Internet Protocol address" assigned to each customer. Violations could be punished by fines of up to $10,000 per incident. The language was subsequently changed.

Qwest's revised position brings it in line with other telecommunications companies, which say they are already required by law to cooperate with criminal investigations and have been generally skeptical of broad, new mandates. The Denver-based company has a market capitalization of $16.5 billion and says it has 784,000 wireless customers and 1.7 million DSL (digital subscriber line) customers.

But the existing laws do not require the data retention that the feds want, nor does it require release of data without a warrant. The problem is that now that the NSA Spying issues are not being decided in the feds' favor, companies like QWEST are trying to avoid the consumer backlash and placing themselves in a position of saying, "We've always supported privacy rights online." Which is why the retraction of Mardozs's "mistake" is so urgent and important.

DeGette's proposed legislation says any Internet service that "enables users to access content" must permanently retain records that would permit police to identify each user. The records could not be discarded until at least one year after the user's account was closed.

Why does the government--state or federal--want to mandate such long-term data retention for these purposes when it doesn't require such meticulous data retention for customer financial records. Most states require retention of account records for 3, 5 or 7 years, but not for the lifetime of the account. Why is the government more interested in spying on Internet users than protecting consumers? The answer is simple... The government under the current Republican/Ultra-Conservative dominated leadership is more interested in abusing our constitutional rights than in making sure that we are safe and secure, or even treated fairly by big business. We are seeing fascism slowly creep into our way of life in increments... and these folks think it is all but necessary.

Rep. Joe Barton, the influential Republican chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has endorsed the concept of data retention and is expected to introduce a bill after the panel completes a series of hearings on child exploitation.

Let us remember Joe Barton and all the other legislators that want to instill a slow, creeping form of fascism into our society at the next round of elections... Vote for none of the above, someone that has not been a party hack (for either party) or for someone with a clear intent of protecting "We the people..." and the principles of the Constitution.

Israel Is A Terrorist Nation: So Says IA & HRW

Human Rights Group Accuses Israel of War Crimes

Amnesty International is the second major human rights watch dog group to allege that Israel has been violating international law and committing war crimes. In no way does this lessen the crimes of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria or Iran in these matters, but it points to a major problem in US foreign policy: We have supported Israel through thick and thin even though they have violated the Geneva Conventions; tortured known Hamas and Hezbollah agents; held suspected terrorists without charges or access to legal representation; invaded countries that have not been hostile to Israel in any way (having a weak government is not justification for invading Lebanon); conducted secret raids aimed specifically at political representatives of Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO (including death squad raids); raided and completely destroyed towns without warrant, probable cause or justification that meets the standards of international law; and acted in a way that is inconsistent with Jewish traditions regarding justice.

Human Rights Watch has also cited Israel for similar violations of international law.

But since the United States has also engaged in similar violations as of late, we do not seem to be taking notice of the terror tactics being implemented by our only real ally in the Middle East. While Saudi Arabia and Bahrain claim to be allies of the US and other Western Nations, the political and grass roots atmosphere in those nations is tenuous at best. The same can be said of Kuwait, which owes its continuation as a nation to the US. While the leadership of these nations have a policy of being "friendly" toward the US, in the Middle Eastern mindset (Jewish, Zionist, Israeli, Muslim, Arab, Kurdish, Afghani, Pakistani, Turkish and Indian) being "friendly," being "friends" and being allies are three separate concepts.

Once again US foreign policy has run amok and outside of the principles by which we have held ourselves accountable (those embedded in the Constitution). While, as the courts have clearly ruled, we are not under any obligation to apply the standards of the Constitution outside of the United States (or US controlled soil), it is a no-brainer that we should apply such standards in terms of our foreign policy and relationships with other nations. We should be leading not only by economic, political, and military strength, but also by moral and principled example. We have not had a principled policy in the Middle East since the Carter Administration... and even then the policies were not clear and always implemented in an honest and faithful fashion.

Our leadership in the world is under attack... and it is an internal attack led by the Bush gang and the ultra-conservatives supporting his agenda.

Amnesty International accused Israel on Wednesday of war crimes in its monthlong battle with Hezbollah, saying its bombing campaign amounted to indiscriminate attacks on Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure and population.

“Many of the violations examined in this report are war crimes that give rise to individual criminal responsibility,” Amnesty International, the London-based human rights group, said in a report on the Israeli campaign. “They include directly attacking civilian objects and carrying out indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks.”

“During more than four weeks of ground and aerial bombardment by the Israeli armed forces, the country’s infrastructure suffered destruction on a catastrophic scale,” the report said, contending this was “an integral part of the military strategy.”

“Israeli forces pounded buildings into the ground,” the report went on, “reducing entire neighborhoods to rubble and turning villages and towns into ghost towns as their inhabitants fled the bombardments.

“Main roads, bridges and petrol stations were blown to bits. Entire families were killed in airstrikes on their homes or in their vehicles while fleeing the aerial assaults on their villages. Scores lay buried beneath the rubble of their houses for weeks, as the Red Cross and other rescue workers were prevented from accessing the areas by continuing Israeli strikes.”

Mark Regev, the spokesman for Israel’s Foreign Ministry, categorically rejected the claim that Israel had “acted outside international norms or international legality concerning the rules of war.” Unlike Hezbollah, he said, Israel did not target the civilian population, nor did it indiscriminately target Lebanese civilian infrastructure.

He added: “Our job was made very difficult by the fact that Hezbollah adopted a deliberate policy of positioning itself inside civilian areas and breaking the first fundamental distinction under the rules of war, by deliberately endangering civilians. Under the rules of war, you are legally entitled to target infrastructure that your enemy is exploiting for its military campaign.”

Citing a variety of sources, the Amnesty International report said Israel’s air force had carried out more than 7,000 air attacks, while the navy had fired 2,500 shells. The human toll, according to Lebanese government statistics, was estimated at 1,183 deaths, mostly civilians, about a third of them children; 4,054 wounded; and 970,000 people displaced, out of a population of a little under four million.

“Statements from the Israeli military officials seem to confirm that the destruction of the infrastructure was indeed a goal of the military campaign,” the report said. It said that “in village after village the pattern was similar: the streets, especially main streets, were scarred with artillery craters along their length. In some cases, cluster bomb impacts were identified.”

“Houses were singled out for precision-guided missile attacks and were destroyed, totally or partially, as a result,” the report said. “Business premises such as supermarkets or food stores and auto service stations and petrol stations were targeted.

“With the electricity cut off and food and other supplies not coming into the villages, the destruction of supermarkets and petrol stations played a crucial role in forcing local residents to leave.”

The Amnesty International report said the widespread destruction of apartments, houses, electricity and water services, roads, bridges, factories and ports, in addition to several statements by Israeli officials, suggested a policy of punishing the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to get them to turn against Hezbollah.

“The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was a deliberate and integral part of the military strategy rather than collateral damage,” the report said.

It also noted a statement from the Israeli military chief of staff, Lt. Gen Dan Halutz, calling Hezbollah a “cancer” that Lebanon must get rid of “because if they don’t, their country will pay a very high price.”

The Amnesty International report came as a number of international aid and human rights agencies used the current lull in fighting to assess the damage.

The United Nations Development Program said the attacks had obliterated most of the progress Lebanon had made in recovering from the devastation of the civil war years. “Fifteen years of work have been wiped out in a month,” Jean Fabre, a spokesman for the organization in Geneva, told reporters.

Another urgent issue, aid groups say, is the number of unexploded bomblets from cluster bombs littering the southern villages. Tekimiti Gilbert, the operations chief of a United Nations mine removal team, told reporters in Tyre: “Up to now there are at least 170 cluster bomb strikes in south Lebanon. It’s a huge problem. There are obvious dangers with people, children, cars. People are tripping over these things.”

United Nations officials say at least five children have been killed by picking up the bomblets scattered about by the cluster bombs.

Despite the cease-fire, southern Lebanon remained tense on Wednesday. Three Lebanese soldiers were killed trying to defuse a rocket that had not exploded. An Israeli soldier was killed and two others wounded when, according to the Israeli military, they walked over a minefield that Israel had previously buried.

The Israeli military also said it had fired artillery rounds from the disputed territory of Shabaa Farms to the Lebanese village of Shabaa. There were no reports of casualties.

Greg Myre contributed reporting from Jerusalem for this article.

Security Breach In Greater Boston Area: KeySpan LNG Storage Facility

LNG Tank Security Breach Eyed: Two Men Climbed Atop Lynn Tank

Being a native of the City of Lynn, where crime runs in waves and is a past-time for most of its children, I know the area well. Lynn is a city where its politicians fight with each other on an hourly basis, businesses are noted for screwing customers, and its public relations campaign has emphasized its history of being "first"... including holding first place in grand theft auto many years running and a history of one of the largest urban fires in history (ca. 1980s) and a pattern of urban renewal by way of arson.

This is a place where the KeySpan folks had an ammonia and LNG pressure release directly under high voltage electric wires and towers. While not a major petroleum storage area in comparison to the tanks bordering Winthrop, Chelsea, Revere, East Boston and Boston proper (known as "Gasoline Alley"), Lynn has its share of major chemical and HAZMAT issues to contend with, including large quantities of ammonia gas used for the West Lynn Creamery operations along the Lynnway (near the beach) and God only knows what at the local General Electric Plants (3 in total).

Lynn Police are busy all the time... just ask my Uncle Bruce that retired as a Captain from the force. So much so that security at these plants are pretty much left to the corporate entities that run them. Of course, KeySpan Energy, Commonwealth Edison and NStar are notorious for not having great security. Neither are the folks that run the storage tanks along "Gasoline Alley" or in the Boston Gas facilities along the expressway in Dorchester and "Southie."

While the intent of the two individuals that decided to climb the LNG tanks in Lynn was probably no less than a prank, a drunken dare or some other complete idiocy, their escapades and shenanigans point out an issue I have been discussing here for almost two years. We are at so great a risk from the lack of developing basic infrastructure and the priority layers of security that all the technology and intelligence that are being perpetrated by the federal government--in all manner of implementation--is useless and silly. If a terrorist wanted to really get to us, they could blow up a railroad tanker, a LNG tank, a nuclear plant, a chemical plant, a bridge, a tunnel or some other piece of unguarded infrastructure that we have totally ignored.

It appears, as is illustrated by the last couple of paragraphs in the story, that the ignorance and denial of the security holes continue.

LYNN, Mass. -- A security breach at a liquefied natural gas storage facility in Lynn is under investigation after two people climbed to the top of a KeySpan tank.

Several months ago, NewsCenter 5's Sean Kelly reported, Team 5 began investigating the security cameras at LNG sites, specifically asking questions including: Who, if anyone, is actually watching the feed from the video cameras? And if they are watching, why does it take so long to respond?

The state ordered increased security at all LNG plants after two men cut the chain link fence at the Lynn tank and climbed on top of it last week. Police investigators were at the scene Wednesday taking pictures of the tank and a gate that was breached.

"My heating bill hasn't gone down, so I would think there would be as little money left over for security and protection for their neighbors and the people who pay their bills," said business owner Michael Mahoney.

Security cameras took pictures of the intruders, but they have not been caught. KeySpan reported the incident five days after it happened.

In April, Team 5 investigated security at other LNG facilities, including a site in Dorchester. Team 5 found no security officer at the gate, and it took about 10 minutes for someone to ask why a photographer was talking pictures of the facility.

"We are aware of the breach. We have notified all appropriate public safety authorities. We have been conducting an intensive internal review of our security. There is no damage to our facility," KeySpan said in a statement Wednesday.

That gives little comfort to neighboring business owners.

"My whole life savings is in this building and I would be freaked out if I'm within the crater that would be left. I would have to review my insurance coverage," said business owner David Zeller.

Lynn police has been contacted by KeySpan to provide on-site detail officers. The Lynn mayor said he has not talked to KeySpan directly, but he does not believe there is an added security risk.

The Bush Gang Does It Again... Protects Big Business From Market Effects

The Awful Effects of American Protectionism: The End of Free Trade

This article is from The New Republic (TNR), which is a e-zine that can't make up its mind whether it is progressive or conservative, Republican or Democrat, intellectual or reactionary, but is occasionally worth the read to stimulate some thought.

With all the hell-in-a-hand-basket headlines coming out of Iraq, Lebanon, and Connecticut, it's easy to understand how the biggest international trade news in years occurred with barely any attention. Late last month, the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Doha Round of negotiations--coined the "development round" for its supposed commitment to making free trade beneficial for developing nations--fell apart after a dispute over agricultural subsidies. This is bad news: While optimists say the round can still be resuscitated, most observers believe it will be at least five years before multilateral talks are back on track.

It is interesting that agricultural subsidies have become a global issue. Here in the US these subsidies, originally intended to aid family and small farm operations, have been supplmenting the income and revenues of many agro-corporations and providing a form of protection from international competition... especially from South American nations that are emerging as major players in agro-business. In many ways the subsidization of larger American agro-business is an extension of the colonial policies and practices effected by the American fruit businesses that were in operation during the late 1800s and the early part of the 20th century. It seems, according to this TNR author, the protectionistic efforts now extend to the agricultural endeavors of Europe and Asia as well.

The Bush administration has been quick to point fingers at Europe, India, and Brazil, but the United States deserves much of the blame. That's because, ever since September 11, the administration has made expanding free trade a key part of its efforts against global instability and extremism. As President Bush said at a recent appearance in Miami, trade talks "have a chance to help lift millions of people out of poverty around the world. ... [O]ur government is strongly committed to a successful outcome of the Doha Round." No wonder, then, that trade observers around the world see in the collapse evidence that the United States has ceded the helm of the global free-trade push. As one columnist wrote in Singapore's Business Times, "The breakdown of the Doha Round of global trade talks is a reflection of the failure of the Bush administration to project U.S. leadership in the geo-economic arena."

I am not sure I follow the line of thinking here. The claim is that the Bush gang is pushing for free trade as a means of interrupting the underlying causes that lead to terrorism... but that the Bush administration has failed to follow through with that effort? How can that be? Dubya claims that he is for free market influences! The Republicans argue against protectionism! The preaching and lecturing coming out of the pulpits in Washington talks about decreasing the barriers to international trade as if it were a new gospel. Even our own ports are up for sale!

Nor does it help that the Doha collapse is only the latest in a string of events this year that seem to point to a surrender of free-trade leadership by Bush. First, the Dubai Ports World imbroglio, then the replacement of Trade Representative Rob Portman with an anonymous functionary. Add to this growing congressional opposition to a series of bilateral trade agreements. And the administration has been helpless to hamper the emergence of regional trading blocs outside the U.S. zone of influence--agreements that, in the absence of further WTO talks, point to a world defined less by global free trade than by a patchwork quilt of (often antagonistic) trade regimes. In other words, the lapse of American trade leadership is pointing us toward an era of greater protectionism, tensions, and global economic instability.

Could it be that other nations have read the writing on the walls and have foreseen the free trade efforts for what they are... advantageous to the US and its friends while not all that useful to those not included in the inner cuircle? Are these nations perceiving that opening their doors means opening the door to investment and control by the rich and powerful rather than there own people? Are they looking west and seeing the corporatism that is underming the bedrock of democracy, while we here at home are lulled into a slumber or distracted by the threat of terrorism so that we do not notice the efforts by the rich and powerful to take control over our lives? We are undergoing a form of corporatism and fascism here in the US that is eroding away our basic principles of freedom, liberty and the very things that have made us the greatest nation in the world.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. As Bush's first trade representative, Robert Zoellick spoke often and eloquently about the need for the United States to take the lead on free trade in order to expand opportunity and the liberal international order--even if that meant making short-term sacrifices at home. "America's trade leadership can build a coalition of countries that cherish liberty in all its aspects," he wrote in The Washington Post on September 20, 2001. "Open markets are vital for developing nations, many of them fragile democracies that rely on the international economy to overcome poverty and create opportunity; we need answers for those who ask for economic hope to counter internal threats to our common values."

We must understand that free trade agreements mean significant sacrifices at home. We have been kowtowing to big business under the flag of Republican and ultra-conservative leadership, lead by the notion that global competition can only be overcome by expanding our influence in the world through corporate expansion into other labor markets (where there are no laws against outright worker exploitation), other consumer markets (like China where there are millions of consumers just waiting to buy stuff), and corporatism can establish control over how "democracy" is spread throughout the world... But what form will this democracy take if only the rich and powerful are allowed to make decisions and pass policy? Capitalism is a tool of democracy, not the its foundation. It seems to me that far too many folks have forgotten that principle.

But the administration never seemed to believe its own rhetoric. Despite its success in winning fast-track powers (in which Congress must vote up or down on trade agreements) and signing a series of regional and bilateral trade agreements, the administration never pushed for the sort of sacrifices at home necessary to bring countries on the free-trade fringe into the fold. The steel tariffs and pork-heavy farm bill of 2002 were only the beginning. Seemingly every year, Bush proposes massive cuts in agriculture subsidies in his budget only to retreat quickly from the ire of lobbyists and farm-state congressmen. These things may not get play in the domestic media--Bush selling out to lobbying interests is a dog-bites-man story--but, internationally, they were taken as a startling retreat from his earlier promises.

The sacrifices that the Bush gang had in mind were sacrifices from the working stiffs and "regular folks," not the big businesses themselves. That is why the Bush gang lost genuine interest in promoting free trade... because the sacrifices called for were from their own financial supporters rather than the rest of us. No American has ever feared making a sacrifice in the name of making our nation safer, more endowed with liberty or more prosperous. Our nation has led the world in accomplishing tasks that were once considered impossible. But we have cast aside our focus on making our nation great, assuring its people a certain quality of life that garnered respect from the rest of the world, empowering others in the world to succeed, and replaced that focus with a latent form of facism that gives more power to corporate big shots than the person casting a vote at the ballot box.

Currently, all three branches of our government are engaged in supporting the transition to corporate facism.

Then there's Doha. While Doha was dubbed "the development round," it quickly became apparent that the United States and Europe were only willing to open their markets in exchange for massive reductions in developing-world trade barriers. Sacrifices were not in the picture, and the talks never really recovered after their temporary breakdown at Cancun in 2003. Despite efforts on both sides to revive them, this impasse continued to define the talks all the way up to this summer, when negotiators gave up in frustration. But, while American officials blamed Europe and Europe blamed the United States, the developing world saw in both a selfish, hypocritical stance that sought only to improve wealthy nations' bottom line. "They say, 'We'll cut 20, and you cut 70'--well, that's not what this round is about," said Kamal Nath, India's commerce and industry minister. Or, as the Guardian wrote, "Protectionism wins the day again."

This paragraph is the affirmation of all my previous comments. Only the poor and the middle classes are supposed to endure sacrifice while the rich and powerful continue to enjoy the process of exploitation. It won't be long before Americans wake up to these issues... and then we will have to decide whether the next revolution will occur at the ballot box or in our streets.

To be fair, Europe probably bears more blame than the United States. The Europeans rely on tariffs and quotas to support their agriculture, while the United States uses subsidies--and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, tariffs and quotas account for 90 percent of the distortions in world agriculture trade. But this is a technical point: No European leader ever bloviated about the importance of free trade in the developing world like Bush.

I am not sure that subsidies are any less malevolent than outright protections provided by tarriffs and quotas. They may be more of a passive means to accomplish the same effect, but they do accomplish they same effect.

Nor did it help that, after the 2004 elections, Bush moved Zoellick to the State Department and replaced him with Representative Rob Portman, who, just 11 months later, moved to the Office of Management and Budget and was replaced by his deputy, Susan Schwab. Few people question Schwab's intelligence or dedication, but she is hardly of Portman's--let alone Zoellick's--diplomatic mettle. A former assistant commerce secretary and academic, she has only a fraction of her predecessors' exposure or prestige. And, in trade diplomacy, those are the relevant factors. As one trade expert told The Journal of Commerce, "When the U.S. pulled Portman ... people thought, 'What kind of message is the U.S. sending to us about Doha?'" Bush may be confident in his personnel decisions, but, for the rest of the world, he seems to be relegating trade to a second-tier priority.

I think thay call this "three-card Monty" on the streets in New York City. It is a rigged shell game that tilts the odds in favor of the folks sponsoring the game... the rich and powerful. The game isn't really a game, because a game has rules that remain consistent and apply to all players... and all the players at the Bush table are not playing by the same rules.

And why do they think that? Bush is seen by many as having given up because the political consequences at home are too great. Consider: the bruising battle over the Central American Free Trade Agreement, the successful opposition to the bid by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation to buy Unocal last year, the Dubai Ports World fight this year, the near-failure of a trade deal with Oman, and the possible failure of a similar deal with Peru. All a consequence of protectionist sentiment in Congress, all instances where Bush's supposed trade leadership was hampered by domestic political concerns. With the midterm elections coming, it's a good bet that Bush doesn't want to hurt his party any more than he already has--and pushing GOP congressmen to back more free-trade efforts would hardly help. This may be no-brainer politics at home, but, to the rest of the world, it is a dismaying retreat.

Has anyone taken notice that everyone is citing the Bush administration for its failures, violation of principles and breach of office?

Without U.S. leadership on free trade and with WTO talks on a long-term hiatus, the world economy is fast-devolving into a panoply of confusing, overlapping trade blocs--what Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim calls the "law of the jungle." Schwab has indicated that her office is now focused on winning more one-on-one trade deals. The European Union is following her lead, revving up talks with several Asian nations. Such bilateral accords are fine in themselves, but, if they come to define international trade, they are worse than nothing. They create a maze of often-contradictory standards; they allow bigger economies to prey on smaller ones even more easily; and they allow blocs to emerge--like the recently signed "people's trade agreement" among Bolivia, Venezuela, and Cuba--that are potentially antagonistic to U.S. interests. An international trade regime defined by bilateral deals is also likely to exclude the worst-off countries--nations that are included in universal organizations like the WTO but are unattractive partners for one-on-one agreements. These countries, by and large, are also the ones most likely to suffer the social and political ills that Bush's foreign policy are supposed to target--and which an equitable global trade environment could help resolve.

If we're not careful, we might actually end up with what we had before, only the corporations founded and grounded in the United States will no longer be the masters of monopoly.

American protectionists may revel today in Bush's apparent unwillingness to push further on free trade. But a world defined by hostile trading blocs, vast regions of instability, and underdevelopment are in no one's interest. Bush's ultimate failure lies in his inability to make that case at home--and to prove it to the rest of the world.

Free trade agreements have been to date a tool for the rich and powerful. If, however, they were to be approached in a manner consistent with principles of liberty, freedom and justice, we might actually achieve some success that will empower workers, enable fair market policies and practices, and implement justice through the workings of the free marketplaces.

Clay Risen , a former assistant editor at The New Republic, is managing editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas.

Bush Administration Calls For Yet Another Erosion Of Privacy

Officials Seek Broader Access to Airline Data

Whether I am on assignment from my job, visiting relatives for the holidays, or going on vacation, I do not consider it any of the US government's business to know why, where, when or how I am flying to my destination. Period. End of argument.

If the government has reason to track my movements (called "probable cause") then they should petition a court of competent jurisdiction for a warrant, present evidence and testimony of probable cause, obtain the warrant and serve it in a manner consistent with the US Constitution and the various state constitutions that sometimes provides even more protection (i.e. the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts provides a broader array of privacy protections under the "Declaration of Rights" than does the US Constitution).

Additionally, there is no provision in the Constitution or US law that compels business entities to be co-opted as an extension of the law enforcement or intelligence activities of the US government. In fact, the argument can be made that the authority does not exist to do so without the cooperation of the business entity and permission of its customers (the Constitution reserves all rights and powers not specifically delineated to the people), or a warrant based on sworn testimony and evidence of probable cause.

But that hasn't stopped the government from seeking to extend its police and intelligence powers without a narrow focus and narrowly defined compelling interest. Despite clear evidence that data mining is an ineffective tool for collecting intelligence (c.f. ACLU's Town Hall Meetings from 02/20/06 and 05/11/06 where national security and computer database experts offered overwhelming arguments that data mining is useless), the government is insisting upon continuing the attack on privacy in the name of fear... fear that they themselves are keeping alive and elevating for political reasons.

Let's talk about fear. It's a powerful motivator. It stresses our bodies and minds. During the Cold War Era studies demonstrated that children, teens and young adults suffered stress from the threat of nuclear war and the potential nuclear attack that always seemed just around the corner according to our government. In fact, only during those long days in October when the Soviet Union was placing nuclear war heads in Cuba, there was only one time when the threat was eminent... and JFK backed the bastards up against a wall and forced them to withdraw. Even the authoritarian Soviets feared a nuclear war.

The threat of communist domination also stressed out our people and was used as a fearful motivator for turning in friends, family, colleagues and co-workers for being asscoiated with an association that merely discussed ideas, organized labor and threatened the status quo of our political parties. Certainly there were members of the American Communist Party that engaged in spying, but there have also been US officials and military officers that have engaged in spying as well. However, in the case of officials and military officer, we did not suggest arresting all government officials or all military officers. We tend to fear being afraid more than actual threats and the Bush administration has done an excellent job of spinning that reality into a web that allows them to continue making our lives spin around the threat of terror.

At this point, as has been pointed out by many experts on terrorism, our perspective on the threat is overblown and exaggerated. The threat of terror is real. There is no doubt about it. But historically, we have had more acts of terror from internal sources than from external sources like Al-Qaeda, the Islamic Brotherhood, Hezbollah or Hamas. Additionally, we have suffered more threats to lives and more actual deaths from safety hazards, drunk driving, natural disasters, diseases that should have been funded for elimination, sanitation failures, environmental failures, tobacco use and drug addiction than terrorists have ever inflicted upon us. The KKK and other white extremist groups are a more consistent and more constant threat to our way of life than the Islamic extremists. The Bush administration is a larger threat to our freedoms and liberties than Al-Qaeda ever will be.

While the talk about the necessity of secret spying programs continues, the government continues to fail in addressing the holes in our national security system. Our ports are still relatively wide open and unsecured. Our trains--passenger and freight--are wide open to attacks. Chemical plants, petroleum refineries, nuclear power plants, electrical stations, and manufacturing plants with large tanks of ammonia, sulphuric acid, hydrochloric acid, ethylene glycol, dioxin and other chemicals or gases used in our daily lives remain open and vulnerable. Our water and food supply are also vulnerable.

Our airports are still not protected by properly trained screeners or the technology--technology that has been available since before the events of 9-11. Our highways are still under patrolled. As was evidenced in a recent case where two Border Patrol Agents were prosecuted and statements regarding the BP procedures made it clear that our BP agents and officers are hamstrung by a policy that does not allow pursuit of a suspect or the use of force in an apparent judgment call (details and truth remain unclear about this case), our borders are a permeable membrane without any real discernment about who comes across. Our immigration policies are totally munged and have been politically, ethnically and racially discriminatory since we began the process, leaving our nation totally vulnerable.

A full year after one of the worst natural disasters we have ever experienced-- worsened by our lack of preparation and our willingness to ignore warnings about leveee and flood controls for decades--our own people are suffering and economic recovery is still hampered by cost overruns, fraud and mismanagement of relief funds, relief organizations and the recovery efforts. We spent billions on temporary trailers and cruise ships that went largely unused when we could have used that money to build better levees, dams, locks... build housing and infrastructure that will last for the next 100 years... build hospitals and service centers that would serve our people better... and make our nation safer.

But the focus of our government is on data mining and wiretapping rather than securing our nation in meaningful ways. Evidence is mounting that this approach is ineffective, despite the claims of the Bush gang that it has already worked.

We have allowed our daily lives to become preoccupied by the threat of terror. We have allowed the paranoid and the reactionary to take control of our government and our lives. We are to blame for our fears and the threat of terror... because we have not taken the appropriate steps to make ourselves safer and more prepared... and because we are allowing the idiocy of poor leadership to keep us prisoners in our own home. We allow sensationalism to be the watchword for us all. The greater the sensationalism, the more likely we are to believe that something is being done. Well, like most sensational headlines in the gossip rags, tabloids and media pundits, the hype is usually overrated and the reality if understated.

United States and European authorities, looking for more tools to detect terrorist plots, want to expand the screening of international airline passengers by digging deep into a vast repository of airline itineraries, personal information and payment data.

A proposal by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff would allow the United States government not only to look for known terrorists on watch lists, but also to search broadly through the passenger itinerary data to identify people who may be linked to terrorists, he said in a recent interview. (NOTE: And millions that MAY NOT be guilty of anything!)

Similarly, European leaders are considering seeking access to this same database, which contains not only names and addresses of travelers, but often their credit card information, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers and related hotel or car reservations.

“It forms part of an arsenal of tools which should be at least at the disposal of law enforcement authorities,” Friso Roscam Abbing, a spokesman for Franco Frattini, vice president of the European Commission and the European commissioner responsible for justice and security, said Monday.

The proposals, prompted by the recent British bomb-plot allegations, have inspired a new round of protests from civil libertarians and privacy experts, who had objected to earlier efforts to plumb those repositories for clues.

“This is a confirmation of our warnings that once you let the camel’s nose under the tent, it takes 10 minutes for them to want to start expanding these programs in all different directions,” said Jay Stanley, a privacy expert at the American Civil Liberties Union.

The United States already has rules in place, and European states will have rules by this fall, allowing them to obtain basic passenger information commonly found in a passport, like name, nationality and date of birth. American officials are pressing to get this information, from a database called the Advance Passenger Information System, transmitted to them even before a plane takes off for the United States.

But a second, more comprehensive database known as the Passenger Name Record is created by global travel reservation services like Sabre, Galileo and Amadeus, companies that handle reservations for most airlines as well as for Internet sites like Travelocity.

Each time someone makes a reservation, a file is created, including the name of the person who reserved the flight and any others traveling in the party. The electronic file often also contains details on rental cars or hotels, credit card information relating to travel, contact information for the passenger and next of kin, and at times even personal preferences, like a request for a king-size bed in a hotel.

European authorities currently have no system in place to routinely gain access to this Passenger Name Record data. Mr. Frattini, his spokesman said, intends to propose that governments across Europe establish policies that allow them to tap into this data so they can quickly check the background of individuals boarding flights to Europe.

“It is not going to solve all our problems,” Mr. Abbing said. “It is not going to stop terrorism. But you need a very comprehensive policy.”

American authorities, under an agreement reached with European authorities in 2004, are already allowed to pull most of this information from the reservation company databases for flights to the United States to help look for people on watch lists.

Members of the European Parliament successfully challenged the legality of this agreement, resulting in a ruling in May by Europe’s highest court prohibiting the use of the data after Sept. 30, unless the accord is renegotiated. European and American officials expect to reach a new agreement by the end of September.

But Mr. Chertoff said that in addition to simply reinstating the existing agreement, he would like to see it eventually revised so American law enforcement officials had greater ability to search the data for links to terrorists.

Under the current agreement, for example, the United States government can maintain Passenger Name Record data on European flights for three and a half years. But it is limited in its ability to give the data to law enforcement agencies to conduct computerized searches. Those searches could include comparing the passenger data to addresses, telephone numbers or credit card records on file for known or suspected terrorists, Mr. Chertoff said.

“Ideally, I would like to know, did Mohamed Atta get his ticket paid on the same credit card,” Mr. Chertoff said, citing the lead hijacker of the 2001 plots. “That would be a huge thing. And I really would like to know that in advance, because that would allow us to identify an unknown terrorist.”

Paul Rosenzweig, a senior policy adviser at the Homeland Security department, said the use of the passenger data would be negotiated with European authorities.

“We are handcuffed in what we can do with it now,” he said. “It would be a big step forward if we could identify ways in which we can use this information to enhance our ability to detect and prevent terrorism while at the same time remaining respectful and responsive to European concerns regarding privacy.”

But the proposals to expand access to this data will be likely to spur objections.

Graham Watson, the leader of the Liberal Democrat group in the European Parliament, said that given the previous opposition to the American use of the passenger record data, he expects the plan by Mr. Frattini will draw protests.

“I think that is unlikely to fly,” he said in an interview on Monday.

The problem, Mr. Watson said, is not a lack of information, but the unwillingness of individual European states to share with other countries data on possible terrorists so that it can be effectively used to block their movement internationally.

Mr. Stanley of the civil liberties union said that if Mr. Chertoff and Mr. Frattini continued in the direction they are headed, the government would soon be maintaining and routinely searching giant databases loaded with personal information on tens of millions of law-abiding Americans and foreigners.

But Stephen A. Luckey, a retired Northwest Airlines pilot and aviation security consultant, said those efforts were an essential ingredient in a robust aviation security system.

“Even with the best technology in the world, we will never be able to separate the individual from the tools he needs to attack us,” said Mr. Luckey, who helped airlines in the United States develop a screening system for domestic passengers. “You are not going to find them all. You have to look for the person with hostile intent.”