Security at Federal Buildings Fails to Catch Bomb Materials in Undercover Tests, Report Says – Political News – FOXNews.com.
Watch out for (at least) two reactions to this story:
- Righteous (either feigned or real) indignation about the lapse of security at these federal sites.
- Alarm that this report was published at all because it undermines the very safety that we’re trying to achieve.
In the case of response number one, this article quotes two senators.
Susan Collins (R-ME), top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee:
The findings of covert security tests conducted by GAO investigators are stunning and completely unacceptable. In post-9/11 America, I cannot fathom how security breaches of this magnitude were allowed to occur. These security lapses and others show a disturbing pattern by the Federal Protective Service of poor training, lapsed documentation, lax management, inconsistent enforcement of security standards and little rigor.
This fits in the category of the first response. Susan Collins is what most Republicans call a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Her statement will likely lead to a call for stricter guidelines on hiring and training practices and security standards, etc. Unfortunately, what that boils down to is that she (or others on the committee) will demand that more money be thrown at the problem.
If I had to choose where to spend my tax dollars, then I would prefer to do it on security matters rather than preserving wet lands. However, is this really the most cost effective way to secure our nation from the likes of terrorists who hate our very existence?
From Joe Lieberman (I-CT), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee:
As we approach the eighth anniversary of 9/11, and 14 years after Oklahoma City, it is simply unacceptable that federal employees working within buildings under FPS’ protection, and the visitors who pass through them, are so utterly exposed to potential attack by terrorists and other enemies (in reference to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington and the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City).
Lieberman’s quote likewise falls under the first response to this news. If it is “unacceptable” for these problems to be happening that can only mean two things: better accountability or more money. I hope that Lieberman and Collins and the rest of the committee will focus on the accountability because we can scarcely afford to spend even more money when our national debt is into the trillions (1,000,000,000,000,000 – this is what a trillion looks like, just for effect).
I’ll stress cost effectiveness again because I think its important not to rush to spend more money even on an obvious problem without considering if it is money well spent. How much money would it take to guarantee the safety of all Americans? It’s an impossible figure to contemplate because it is not reasonable to protect Americans from every possible attack (and I am speaking solely of physical harm caused by enemies of America, not emotional harm suffered by McDonald’s forgetting to give you your McNugget dipping sauce, or the self-induced harm from eating one too many Twinkies). Cost effectiveness also has to take into consideration the hidden costs of restrictions on freedom that additional security measures will lead to. If too many freedoms are sacrificed for the sake of safety, or security, then we risk forfieting the ideals of our country. A balance will need to be negotiated to preserve freedom while providing security and that will take more time then just agreeing to spend more money simply because there are problems with the service.
This example from the article highlights the needs for better accountability:
The GAO found other problems with guard training and reported that in one check of security, investigators found a guard asleep on the job after taking the painkiller Percocet. In another, they found a guard failed to recognize or did not properly X-ray a box carrying handguns at the loading dock of a facility
I am not in the business of securing buildings from terrorist attacks, but I imagine a better vigilance to prevent this sort of behavior is possible without increasing the costs of securing the facilities. Let’s hope that the committee focuses on those measures instead of just throwing more money at the problem.
The second response will not likely get much press coverage because the media does not really seem concerned with the safety of Americans in our war against terrorists (e.g. wiretapping stories on the front page). If you hear it at all it will be from conservative commentators and maybe a few defense-minded Republicans who are too low on the ladder of influence to be on the radar screen of the major news outlets. Here are two quotes from this article:
The Government Accountability Office said investigators carried bomb-making materials past security at 10 federal buildings. Security at these buildings and a total of about 9,000 federal buildings around the country is provided by the Federal Protective Service, a target of the probe.
Once GAO investigators got the materials in the buildings, the report said, they constructed explosive devices and carried them around inside. For security reasons, the GAO report did not give the location of the buildings.
So, it’s reported exactly how to breach the security at these facilities and the 9,000 buildings secured by the Federal Protective Service, but they make sure not to identify the buildings for security reasons. Huh? 9,000 buildings must make up a significant chunk of the existing federal buildings meaning most of them are vulnerable to attack. More significantly, all the potential terrorist has to do is find a federal building secured by the FPS and go to work doing their evil.
That there has not been an attack on our soil in the last eight years is a fact that we should celebrate and I think we owe a great deal of gratitude to the men and women who take their job of protecting the citizens of the United States very seriously and with obvious devotion to country (if not their paychecks). However, if some one (or group) wants to execute some sort of attack on the U.S. then there is very little to stop them except vigilence. In the meantime, let’s celebrate our freedom without restricting them for the sake of safety.
Marc Whitman's Blog 