Republican Crazies Are Complaining About The Handling of Times Square Terrorist

I expected that the crazies would start complaining about the Times Square event. It didn't take them long at all. The idiots claim that providing miranda to a citizen is somehow out of step with Federal law and our legal norms. Of course this has been done since Miranda V. Arizona almost half a century ago. But who cares about the facts? Who cares about facts when you are a Republican and you live in a fantasyland where you can make up your own reality - a reality that you can get gullible American voters to buy into?

John McCain, one of the main complainers, is a U.S. Senator and should know the laws in this Country. This man scares the Hell out of me. I always thought he was somewhat of a whackjob. It's amazing that he almost became President. In fact, McCain would probably be President right now if not for Bush's economic crisis. Even with the unpopularity of Bush and the Republican Party, McCain was headed for victory (according to polling) against Obama prior to the economic collapse in the Fall of 2008. We definitely dodged a bullet.

Joe Lieberman took the crazy a step further by suggesting that Shahzad should have his citizenship taken away in order to eliminate the need for miranda or a trial in the Federal Courts.

From Huffpost:

Lieberman argued that if an act of terrorism was coordinated with a group designated as a terrorist organization, then an American involved with such a group would lose citizenship and the constitutional protections that come with it.

Ummm, excuse me Mr. Lieberman, but does that also include the Right wing Christian Conservatives, the Tea Party radicals, and White Supremacist terror groups that have been embraced by the Republican Party, either tacitly or out in the open? What about the members of Congress who are associated with radical extremists on the right and who stoke fear? I wonder how that would work out.

Faisal Shahzad Arrested for Attempted Times Square Attack

Possible Co-conspirator(s) Arrested Overseas

Lessons Learned? Unfortunately There Probably Won't Be. It May Even Send The Country Into A Deeper State of Complacency.

Faisal Shahzad, a 30 year old originally from Pakistan was arrested in the nick of time at JFK airport overnight. He was apparently taken off an aircraft, just before departure. More here.

I knew it would be just a matter of time before we started to see this kind of activity here in the U.S. (Car bomb attempts, IED's, etc). More of these events are probably inevitable. Unfortunately, the level of security in the U.S. is woefully inadequate for dealing with these types of threats. It was luck that prevented a disaster in Times Square.

The U.S. still has gaping holes in its security. At the moment, there is no effective comprehensive or cohesive security strategy. The U.S. system relies too heavily on the intelligence community on one extreme, and too heavily on conventional military power on the other extreme. In the middle lies a big hole (domestic security). I have always been baffled by this notion that the intelligence community should be able to stop every event. Traditionally, this has never been the role of intelligence. It was never meant to be 100%, 90% or even 80% effective in thwarting terrorist attacks. Intelligence - which began as a military concept - is just a tool in a much larger toolbox. It was traditionally meant to be used in conjunction with other resources, not as the end all be all. But due to sensational media coverage since 9/11, Americans have come to believe and expect that intelligence could magically stop everything. Events that go undetected are often mistakenly labeled as "intelligence failures"....regardless of whether they are really failures or not. In an open society like the one we have in the U.S., the best intelligence system will only stop about 50% of incidents like the Times Square event (and that's pretty good).

That "middle" that I mentioned includes an immigration system that should be more effective at screening who enters the country, should have a more effective vetting system for entrants from certain parts of the globe, should have a more selective system for determining who receives residency status, citizenship, etc. The "middle" also refers to a better ability to track suspects, the need for a system to limit or prevent the purchase of ingredients that could be used for IED's (ammonium nitrate for example), and soft targets, including high value targets, that are wide open. Our passenger rail systems, metro train systems, bus systems, and passenger ships are all inadequately protected. Commercial rail, which transports tons of hazardous materials through heavily populated areas, also lacks adequate security measures.

The U.S. also needs to utilize biometric ID technology. State ID's and drivers licenses should be tamper proof. Federal law should require ID and information to be recorded whenever there is a private transaction involving the sale of automobiles,
hazardous store-bought ingredients that could have dual uses, etc. Certain items shouldn't be available for sale at all, unless the customer can demonstrate a legitimate use for the materials. Americans would be surprised at what kinds of materials are available over the counter.

The biggest part of the gaping hole in the "middle" is the private security sector. We have a private security industry in the U.S. that is a complete joke. While other countries such as India, Israel, and much of Europe have nationalized most aspects of their security (like the nationalization of Health Care for example), the U.S. maintains a weak private, for-profit, security system. In the years to come, Americans will unfortunately begin to see how bad this really is. It's one of those gaping holes that has always been there, but won't be fully understood until there is a catastrophe. I recall flying from Germany one year (way back in the 80's) to come home for some kind of family visit, and I remember how strong the security was. The screening agents, even back then, worked for the State (West Germany at the time). It took a tragedy like 9/11 to get the U.S. to nationalize its screening operations (although the private screeners were not directly responsible for 9/11... they were used as a convenient scapegoat). But there have been other cases where private screeners, which worked directly for the airlines, proved inadequate. It was nonsensical to put airlines in charge of their own security screening operations. The whole concept was flawed from the beginning.

Hopefully the U.S. will wake up and strengthen its security posture before these sorts of events become the new normal.

Is A London Style Surveillance Network A Good Idea For American Cities?

Is a London style surveillance network the answer for U.S. cities? Many in law enforcement circles in this country envy the British system, which has a network of thousands of cameras which are always recording. Many officials here in the U.S. want the capabilities that British police recently demonstrated after the foiled car bomb attacks in London.

Most of the cameras are on public streets, highways, subways, buses, tunnels, and in large public facilities. Police in Britain are able to go back and track vehicles within London and can even track vehicles from city to city, long after an incident has occurred.

Officials In the U.S. are now slowly beginning to adopt a British style surveillance program, even though such systems would not be as effective in this country, due to the high number of police jurisdictions and the various State, County, and City laws. Much of the British system is national and operated by a few agencies, allowing the network to operate efficiently. Here in the U.S., there will inevitably be disputes about who will operate the system, the rules for operation, who would be responsible for maintenance, who would be responsible for responding to reports, and who would pay for it.

There is also the notion (somewhat misguided) that such systems would prevent terrorism. This is not the case. International terrorists are not deterred by the presence of surveillance cameras. Cameras did not stop the July 2006 bombings in London, did not stop the latest bombing attempts, nor did they stop the terrorist attacks in Madrid Spain. Why? Because Muslim extremists are not deterred by conventional security measures. These individuals have accepted martyrdom as their fate and want to fulfill what they see as a mission for their God. This is not like a domestic criminal who robs a bank and doesn’t want to be recognized. On the contrary, Muslim extremists don’t mind, and often want to be caught on surveillance video so that they can get credit for their deed. This only inflates their legacy as a Martyr. Therefore, in the context of international terrorism, surveillance cameras in most cases would only assist law enforcement with piecing together what happened after the fact.

I have over a decade of experience operating surveillance systems. I also covered the issue of surveillance cameras while in college. I was once on the fence about surveillance (many years ago). I used to be more skeptical about the need for such systems every single place that we go. In fact, I am still somewhat against the idea of “big brother” hanging over us constantly, particularly in our workplaces and schools. However, when it comes to surveillance systems in public areas, such as the network in Britain, my position has softened quite a bit, although I still have some misgivings. Such surveillance systems are typically in areas where there is no expectation of privacy. And they are very useful in curbing the kinds of domestic crimes where normal criminals are concerned about being caught in the act.

I feel that under the right conditions (appropriate rules and regulations) such cameras could be useful. Furthermore, surveillance video is typically seen as more reliable than human witnesses. You could role play the same 2 minute event to 100 people in the same room, then separately interview each person afterwards and you would get 100 different variations of the same event. Everyone has a different perception of what they see…and they sometimes omit, embellish or simply forget some parts of what they see. Or they simply may not be good at expressing what happened. Cameras are useful at eliminating that problem- a problem that has been a nuisance since the early days of modern policing, which ironically started in London.

Of course the other concern is are we giving up our privacy with these cameras? My take is that we have not crossed that line just yet, but we may be on a slippery slope. A London type surveillance program is not too intrusive, but such a system could open the door to more intrusive surveillance measures 20, 30, or 40 years down the road.

But as of right now, if you are not breaking the law… I would say you have nothing to worry about. Camera operators typically don’t want to waste their time following law abiding citizens. They typically monitor people who are exhibiting behaviors that provide some sort of probable cause or reasonable suspicion to warrant the monitoring.

Hear a great audio discussion about this issue from the On Point Radio program from a few days ago. LISTEN HERE (Use Realplayer Option).

Our we giving up too much privacy with these surveillance systems? Is a London style camera network a good idea for U.S. cities?