No Questions Asked

As the 1,000th day of U.S. military presence in Iraq fades into the 1,001st day, it seems an appropriate time to reflect on why we went to Iraq and what we’ve accomplished.

On March 18, 2003, George W. Bush said the U.S. had to go to war because there was “no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” Additionally, Saddam’s regime has “deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.”

He told Iraqis listening to the speech that a war would be beneficial to them. “If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.”

The goals sounded reasonable enough: to prevent a weapon of mass destruction from being used to kill thousands and to help Iraqis lead a life of liberty, free from the fear of executions, rape rooms and torture chambers.

The U.S. declared that Iraq’s liberation occurred on September 2, 2003. Paul Bremer, the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, held a secret ceremony and said: “The Iraqi people are now free. And they do not have to worry about the secret police coming after them in the middle of the night, and they don’t have to worry about their husbands and brothers being taken off and shot, or their wives being taken to rape rooms. Those days are over.” He then boarded a plane and left the country.

A month later President Bush confirmed Bremer’s assessment. “Iraq is free of a brutal dictator. Iraq is free of the man who caused there to be mass graves. Iraq is free of rape rooms and torture chambers. Iraq is free of a brutal thug. America did the right thing.”

Unfortunately, while Iraq may be free of one “man who caused there to be mass graves,” thousands of Iraqis are lying in graves because of the acts of another man.

Two days ago a new torture chamber was found in Iraq. The facility held 625 men, all of who were malnourished and many of who showed signs of torture. Thirteen were hospitalized, 12 of them had been tortured with electric shock. Many of the prisoners were missing fingernails that were torn from their fingers during interrogations.

Condoleezza Rice spent the past week defending a U.S. decision to kidnap husbands and brothers from the streets of cities across Europe. Most were sent to torture centers. Rice’s argument is basically that America’s secret police is better than Saddam’s because it protects Americans from harm. She claims that snatching European citizens (called rendering by the administration), drugging them and flying them to secret prisons in different countries is legal and moral.

“Rendition is a vital tool in combating transnational terrorism. …The United States Government must protect its citizens. We and our friends around the world have the responsibility to work together in finding practical ways to defend ourselves against ruthless enemies. And these terrorists are some of the most ruthless enemies we face.”

Listening to officials it is sometimes difficult to separate our accomplishments from our errors.

What is clear is this: The weapons we believed were in Iraq were not there. Al Qaeda, bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were not working together, although it is believed that al Qaeda is now using Iraq as a real-world training camp.

President George W. Bush said on Monday he believes 30,000 Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. went to Iraq. The prestigious medical journal the Lancet put the figure closer to 100,000.

At least 2,146 American soldiers have died in Iraq. It is unclear how many have been injured because the administration will not disclose the totals. The number of military personnel with serious injuries is estimated to be between 11,000 to 22,000, a figure that would startle most Americans.

The administration’s tallies of the war dead and injured are so misleading that recently several members of Congress wrote a letter to the president asking for accountability: “We are concerned that the Department of Defense has been under-reporting casualties in Iraq by only reporting non-fatal casualties incurred in combat. We write today to request that you provide the American people with a full accounting of the American casualties in Iraq since the March 19, 2003 invasion, including a full accounting of the fatalities, the wounded, those who have contracted illnesses during their time overseas, and those suffering from mental afflictions as a result of their service in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. We are concerned that the figures that were released to the public by your Administration do not accurately represent the true toll that this war has taken on the American people.”

Today Congress said the amount spent on the war is fast approaching half-trillion dollars — that’s $500 billion. What do we have to show for all the money we’ve spent? There should be some accountability for the horrendous waste of money.

Last week the President said: “No nation in history has made the transition to a free society without facing challenges, setbacks and false starts,” This is most certainly true. What is unclear, however, is Iraq’s progress toward becoming a free society.

There are kidnappings, robberies, rapes, suicide bombings and school closings because of lack of funds. Bodies turn up on riverbanks every day. ( http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/05/16/iraq.main/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1433722,00.html )
Most have their hands tied behind their backs, many show signs of brutal treatment before their deaths.

One Iraqi family had been filled with hope that after a few years of lawlessness order would be restored and freedom would rule, as President Bush had promised it would. That hope is now gone.

“The worst thing is knowing that you can no longer delude yourself that things are going to get better. It is an awful way to exist, living without hope,” said Nadia al-Hayali, sitting at her home in Baghdad with the doors bolted, a refuge from a society disintegrating all around. “I thought that whatever the excuses given for the war it would be good to have freedom for people to express themselves. Even when things started to go wrong I thought they would turn around. But now I feel we have gained nothing except endless deaths and destruction.”

Why has she lost hope? The secular and co-educational international school she used to teach at did not receive aid from Western agencies and closed because of lack of funds. Her children had also attended the school. Her husband lost his job with international aid organization because of lack of funding. Her uncle returned from London to run for office in the “free” election. He was abducted by gunmen and released after a ransom of $600,000 was paid. She is just one of the many. This is the type of “freedom” that most Iraqi’s are experiencing.

The Iraqi people are not liberated — they live in a lawless society and are ruled by fear. In the past 12 months 400,000 middle class Iraqis have fled to Jordan where they now live peacefully. Thousands of others live in surrounding countries. These are the very people who are supposed to be building the new Iraq. Are the warlords and kidnappers rebuilding the country?

What exactly have we accomplished? How are citizens of the world safer when they can be plucked off the street and sent to secret prisons?

Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told Americans after the Abu Ghraib scandal “Frankly, I think all of us are disappointed at the actions of the few. You know, every day, we love our soldiers and — but frankly, some days we’re not always proud of our soldiers.”

He urged Iraqis to remember that the abuses were the work of a few and were not representative of all Americans. “So what would I tell the people of Iraq? This is wrong. This is reprehensible. But this is not representative of the 150,000 soldiers that are over here,” Kimmitt added. “I’d say the same thing to the American people…. Don’t judge your army based on the actions of a few.”

More recently Rice justified the “renderings by saying: “We must treat them in accordance with our laws, which reflect the values of the American people. We must question them to gather potentially significant, life-saving intelligence. We must bring terrorists to justice wherever possible.”

It is time to stand up and take responsibility for our government’s actions.

Recently a Bush advisor noted that “He’s listening a little more because he’s looking for something new. He’s looking for ideas. He wants to hear what people are saying, because something might strike him as worth following up on.”

Let’s just hope that someone tells him that he is committing horrendous crimes against humanity and that it is time to stop. Maybe the new idea he’s looking for is compassion. So far he has tried everything but compassion and has not succeeded in accomplishing any of his goals.

Maybe the new year will bring Iraqis peace and stability so they can work toward building a democracy that works for them.

I wrote the piece below last year as an addendum about major stories the media missed over the past few years. I decided to publish it on my blog because today the 9/11 Commission will release a report saying that the country is not safe from terrorist attack. It should come as no surprise — ignoring stories and refraining from asking questions does not enhance security — it breeds a dangerous ignorance and creates a false sense of security. Ignoring obvious questions led to the disastrous war in Iraq.

It’s time for journalists and members of Congress to act more responsibly.

Is the country safe from another terrorist attack? If not, what needs to be done to make America more secure? Where is U.S. taxpayer money being spent in the war against terror? Who is profiting from the war? We know who will suffer from a terrorist attack, but who take responsible for the security lapses if terrorists attack again?

Why is the media so afraid to dig for answers?

John Negroponte told CNN, “I think our country is safer today” because of better integrated intelligence efforts and cited as proof a new National Clandestine Service for all the nation’s spies and a new National Security Branch at the FBI.

It is important for journalists to ask Necroponte how “the nation’s spies” are sharing information and how the CIA and FBI are working together to stop terrorism. The FBI and CIA had plenty of information that a terrorist attack was being planned before Sept. 11, 2001. The problem was the bureaucracy of the system and the petty divisions between the CIA and FBI that prevented the plan from being foiled. How does creating another bureaucracy help fight terrorism?

Why should the American public believe Necroponte when this administration has lied about everything from the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein to Iraq’s weapons capabilities?

The American public has been patient and obedient, but it’s time to demand proof.

Homeland Security

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Department of Homeland Security was created to protect the nation from another devastating attack. In time, the department grew in size and became quite a bureaucracy. In 2004 the agency employed between 170,000 and 210,000 people, depending on who you asked. Bush supplied the first figure, Ann S. Tursic, chief of the department’s personnel security division the second. It contains 22 federal agencies.

One purported goal of the department is to examine areas with high risk of terrorist attacks — such as nuclear facilities, water and electrical supplies — and to make them safer. It is difficult to determine whether these facilities are safer or more secure because the department has classified the bulk of the information. Homeland Security is exempted from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements and has the ability to withhold any and all information from the public. The vast federal agency and its actions have largely been exempted from media scrutiny.

Additionally, under Section 214 of the Homeland Security Act, “‘critical infrastructure information’ voluntarily provided to the Department of Homeland Security [by any company] is not subject to disclosure under FOIA.” Critical infrastructure includes telecommunications, energy production, banking and finance, transportation, water systems and emergency services. Information that was previously available to civic groups that, for example, monitored local industries to ensure their groundwater was not being contaminated, was now classified and could not be obtained.

The new Homeland Security Act not only removes critical infrastructure information from disclosure mandates of FOIA, “it removes Homeland Security advisory boards from the openness requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and creates restrictions that will deter whistleblowers.”

The administration attempted to exempt the Department of Homeland Security from whistleblower protection rules when it created the vast new department. The Whistleblower Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1989, was designed to protect federal employees who come forward with information they “reasonably believe” exposes gross mismanagement or issues that could harm public safety if not exposed. The administration’s original draft of the Homeland Security Act effectively exempted employees from whistleblower protection.

Members of Congress refused to pass the legislation without the provisions and Whistleblower protection was included in the bill. However, there are still several loopholes that prevent employees from speaking against gross negligence.

FAA whistleblower Bogdan Dzakovic testified before Congress and spoke with the media about airport security lapses he had uncovered prior to the Sept. 11 attacks. He also said: “Secrecy enforced by repression is being institutionalized through another new concept of unclassified secrecy called ‘Critical Infrastructure Information (CII),’ which can be virtually anything provided by industry to the Department to assist in the ‘War on Terrorism.’ If an employee blows the whistle with this unclassified CII evidence, it is a criminal act subject to immediate termination from the government, and up to a year in jail. This new CII form of secrecy was passed as part of the Homeland Security Act. If it had been law when I blew the whistle, I could have been fired and be sitting in jail, instead of being vindicated and testifying today.”

The media has spent very little time examining what Homeland Security actually does, how it works and how the nation is more secure because of its actions.

An extensive search by the Columbian Journalism Review in October 2004 found “that over the last couple of years, [media] coverage of the effort to prevent another 9/11 has been spotty, episodic, reactive, and shallow. The strong stories we did find are the exceptions that prove the rule, and they more than demonstrate the need for a continuing and critical assessment of whether the government’s policies and practices actually match their stated purpose of safeguarding America.”

Those stories that were reported revealed that Homeland Security has not necessarily made any major improvements.

The Ports

After the attacks, rigorous new international rules were implemented in an attempt to improve port safety. By July 1, 2004 all ports had to be able to demonstrate that they had assessed vulnerabilities and had taken steps to address them. The plans had to include information about how they would address on-going security risks and had to be reviewed and approved by the Coast Guard. In addition, all foreign ships arriving in United States were “required to carry a security officer, display identification clearly, have updated alarm systems and alert authorities 96 hours before arrival.”

In the United States alone, 3,147 port facilities and 9,194 ships had to draw up security plans, according to a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report. Ships carry around 9 million containers into U.S. seaports each year. Additionally, almost 200 million people travel in and out of the country on cruise ships and ferries.

Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge announced a week before the rule’s deadline that all U.S. ports were in compliance. “For the first time ever, this international effort will establish one world standard for ship and port security,” Ridge said.

A GAO report stated the opposite — that it was very unlikely the ports would meet the deadline. The report said that the Coast Guard had not reviewed at least 7 percent of all U.S. ports and more than half of U.S.-flagged ships. “If you haven’t seen the individual plans, how do you know if those plans are in compliance?” asked Margaret T. Wrightson, the GAO’s director of homeland security and justice issues. In addition, she noted, “every single plan the Coast Guard reviewed had deficiencies, some of which were significant.”

Throughout the years ABC News tested port security and found it woefully lacking. In 2002 ABC News successfully sent depleted uranium on a commercial ship from Turkey to New York City and it arrived undetected. In 2003 ABC News packed depleted uranium on a ship in Indonesia and successfully brought it into the U.S. through a port in Los Angeles. Of the 6.5 million containers that pass through LA port each year, about three percent are screened.

Correspondent Brian Ross said: “For a second year, US Customs screeners failed to detect a shipment in a container from overseas that nuclear weapons experts say they should have — 15 pounds of depleted uranium. Depleted uranium is harmless, but scientists say it would give off much the same signature as weapons-grade uranium packed the same way, shielded by lead.”

The Department of Homeland Security was furious and threatened the network with arrests for endangering national security. ABC stood strong and defended the need for stories that held the department to task. But as of October 2004 it had not attempted to breach security again.

Some, such as the California port that did not detect ABC’s uranium, say the amount dedicated to protecting ports is not adequate. The U.S. Coast Guard said it needed $7.5 billion over a 10-year period to implement the Martime Security Act of 2002 to secure U.S. ports and waterways. As of August 2004, the administration had allocated $500 million toward securing waterways from attack.

Lloyd’s of London has said it believes that al-Qaeda owns or has interests in at least a dozen ships.

The Borders

Despite the Department of Homeland Security’s new US-VISIT system, which fingerprints and photographs each non-immigrant visa entrant into the U.S. and links government databases, those patrolling the borders say the U.S. can be easily infiltrated.

A survey of 500 Border Patrol agents and immigration officers found most believed “the Department of Homeland Security could do more to stop potential terrorists from entering the country, and more than a third said they were not satisfied that they had the tools and training to do so.” In addition, 53 percent said they thought the country was safer, but 44 percent said it was no safer or was less safe. “Prior to Sept. 11, 2001, it was extremely easy to enter the United States illegally. Incredibly, this has not changed in any meaningful way,” ‘ said T. J. Bonner, president of one of the unions, the National Border Patrol Council.

The Sky

Reports have shown that the planes are not as secure as they should be. The Department of Homeland security officials claim some successes: Hardened cockpit doors have been added to planes; federal air marshals have been deployed in airports and aboard flights and passenger names for domestic flights are allegedly checked against an expanded terrorist watch list.

However, there have been several reported incidents in which guns and knives were successfully carried onto planes. In August 2003 a woman was arrested in Philadelphia when she tried to board a connecting flight with a loaded .357 magnum handgun in her carry on. She had just gotten off a plane from Atlanta to Philadelphia with the gun in her bag.

In October 2003 a college student hid box cutters, bleach, matches and modeling clay on U.S. passenger airliners to highlight aviation security problems. They remained, undetected in the planes, for a month.

In January 2004 a woman flew from New York’s LaGuardia Airport to Denver when she realized, during a layover in Denver that she had a knife and stun gun in her purse, which she had carried on board. She immediately alerted authorities who could not explain how she managed to get through security with the banned items.

Additionally, while most travelers are aware of the intensified security scrutiny of passengers at airports, they are unaware that some luggage placed in the cargo hold of their plane is not screened at all. In 2003, more than 12 million tons of cargo and mail was transported by air in the U.S. Of that, 9.7 million tons was shipped on cargo-only planes. The remaining 2.8 million tons of cargo was transported in the holds of planes along with passengers’ suitcases. According to the latest report, a September 2003 study by the Congressional Research Service, “less than 5 percent of cargo placed on passenger airplanes is screened.” It is a startling figure considering the Transportation Security Administration estimates the chance that terrorists are planning to pace a bomb in the cargo of a U.S. passenger plane to be between 35 and 65 percent.

TSA’s response to threats doesn’t exactly instil confidence. After a Russian airliner was downed by possible terrorist activity, the TSA announced a new initiative to assure all passengers were safe while flying: passengers at airport checkpoints would be subject to “pat-down searches,” to ensure bulky sweaters weren’t hiding any weapons. They didn’t explain why their new multi-million dollar security machines could miss something hidden in a baggy sweater.

In terms of the air marshals added to flights, the Homeland Security Department’s inspector released a report in August 2004 that stated “federal air marshals have slept on the job, tested positive for alcohol or drugs while on duty, lost their weapons and falsified information…[there were] 753 incidents of misconduct by air marshals during an eight-month period in 2002.”

Security Grants

Lastly, much of the money Homeland Security grant money given to municipalities has been spent on things that have little to do with protecting citizens from terrorist attack. A March 30, 2004 press release from the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would award “$2.2 billion from the State Homeland Security Grant Program and $725 million from the Urban Area Security Initiative to state and local governments to help first responders across the nation better protect their communities. These funds are part of over $8 billion the Department has allocated or awarded since March 1, 2003 to help our nation’s first responders and state and local governments to prevent, respond and recover from potential acts of terrorism and other potential disasters.”

The Washington Post reported in a story in November 2003 that much of the money given to municipalities by Homeland Security was used to fund pet projects that had little to do with terrorism. “In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, lawmakers doled out the money quickly, with few restrictions and vague guidelines. Left to interpret needs on their own — and with little regional coordination — cash-strapped local and state officials plugged budget holes, spent millions on pet projects and steered contracts to political allies.”

The District of Columbia police were given leather jackets from Homeland Security money. In Maryland, the money was used to buy a $500,000 digital camera system for taking mug shots. In Virginia, a small volunteer fire department spent $350,000 on a custom-made fireboat. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments used some of the money for janitorial services.

The Des Moines Register found that Iowa agencies spent anti-terrorism money on traffic cones, paper shredders, work gloves, rubber boots and even a wall clock with a hidden camera for a director’s office.

Massachusetts state officials “spent more than $14,000 in anti-terrorism funds to videotape the August 2002 graduation ceremonies for 122 new State Police troopers” and provide them each with a copy of the tape, according to public records obtained by the Boston Herald. In a no-bid contract, the state hired the Rendon Group (a PR firm that also works with the Pentagon) to videotape the ceremony and make 200 copies. The money came from the State Anti-Terrorism Unified Response Network (SATURN) account, which is billed “the Commonwealth’s First Line of Defense.” SATURN’s mission is “to improve the readiness of the cities, towns and fire districts of the Commonwealth to manage incidents resulting from terrorist attacks.” It was later discovered that “one-third of SATURN funds were devoted to advertising, media consulting and public events rather than security efforts…[and James Jajuga, who was secretary of public safety until ousted in 2003 used] $17,000 in SATURN funds to buy a plasma screen television for his Beacon Hill office.”

In the small town of Estes Park, which is the gateway to Colorado’s Rocky Mountain National Park, “the fire department spent nearly $100,000, most of it from a Federal Emergency Management Grant, to build a new private gym and Wellness Center for 37 volunteer firefighters…Federal officials allowed Estes Park to build the gym and says the town used the proper rules and guidelines within the grant program.”

It is difficult to determine how the rest of the towns and cities in Colorado spent their portion of the $122 million the state received in Homeland Security Grants because the state determined that revealing how the money was spent would jeopardize security and won’t release the information.

About one-third of the states that received Homeland Security grants decided against allowing the public to review how the money was being spent.