Kindess is the basis of Security.

Dear Editor,
Michael Chertoff is right. ‘There has not been an attack on America soil since 9-11’. This is also meaningless for at least 3 reasons.
First, Al Qaeda doesn’t need to hit us here if we are destroying our own economy and constitution through an endless global war that also corrodes our cherished domestic freedoms. Bin Ladin’s primary goal wasn’t mass murdering Americans on American soil. His primary goals were to ‘break us economically’ and ‘divide us politically’. Bush’s policies have been doing this quite well.
Second, Al Qaeda doesn’t need to come here when they can kill us over there in greater numbers. More Americas have been killed and maimed by terrorists during the last 7 years of the Bush Presidency than from all the terrorist attacks on Americans proceeding and including 9-11.
Last, Americans are now directly and indirectly responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Muslims in Iraq and the displacement of millions more as a result of Bush’s post 9-11 policies. These losses have aided the recruitment of future terrorists that may yet succeed in mass casualty attacks here -- perhaps using biological weapons.
Chertoff claims that “at our ports, we have deployed radiation scanning equipment to check virtually 100 percent of incoming cargo for WMD”. He doesn’t say these scanners are incapable of detecting biological WMD that could be more devastating than a nuclear blast. Unlimited border patrol/control expenditures won’t be able to detect or stop such weapons without completely destroying our economy and shredding our constitution. Then there are domestic sources of WMD like the post 9-11 anthrax attacks by a US citizen ‘with’ security clearances.
And, the power to commit mass murder grows exponentially with both old and new technologies. And, the same technology growth curves give every government increasing capacity to invade the privacy of our lives.
Real security lays in common principle within each of the Abrahamic religions. Be kind to one another. U.S. militaristic foreign policy based on “US interests” has not always been kind to innocent people. Our best interest is to ensure the security of all people who share this troubled world with us. Our Savior once said, ‘Those who live by the sword will certainly die by it.’ In this light sufficient U.S. expenditures towards Helene Gayle’s advice (“Do the right thing: Strike at the roots of Poverty” 12-26-08) would do more to yield security than any military or DHS expenditures.

Bioterrorism prevention not possible with military means

Dear Editor,
The Washington Times usually has outstanding coverage of national security and foreign policy issues facing Americans. That’s why its inadequate coverage of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism 3 days after the release of their report is so disturbing. The Washington Times gave this profoundly important report less than 7 narrow column inches in it’s “Washington in 5 minutes” page.
There is no other terrorist threat that deserves more attention than the threat of biological weapons and the measures needed to truly prevent such horrific means of mass murder.
There are at least 4 characteristics of biological weapons that make them such a game changer when protecting America’s security, freedoms and prosperity.
First, the technologies used to make biological weapons are exponentially increasing in power and global availability while falling in costs.
Second, most biological weapons form a new classification of weaponry. They replicate when used instead of being used up when fired.
Third, the size of biological weapons means they can be created and dispersed with minimal infrastructure and a nearly infinite array of undetectable delivery mechanisms. A bioweapon capable of targeting a specific ethic group with a similar genetic profile can be created in a basement bathroom sized lab and delivered by spray bottles.
Last, defending against such weaponry is virtually impossible without first developing every possible pathogen imaginable while also developing a massive manufacturing and distribution infrastructure that could not be easily be targeted or debilitated by increasingly available conventional weapons.
The new report from the congressionally mandated bi partisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism (created last spring as one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission) concluded in the opening sentence of the executive summary: “Unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.”
The six-month study headed by former Senators Bob Graham (D-FL), and Jim Talent (R-MO) correctly faulted the Bush administration for failing to devote the same degree of high-level attention and resources to the threat of bioterrorism as it has to nuclear threats, but, the panel’s 13 recommendations falter by suggesting it’s possible to adequately secure dangerous pathogens and tighten oversight of high-containment laboratories by strengthening international organizations. Even with unlimited access to every nation, every laboratory and every cave in the world international organizations will have difficulty in stopping a determined bioterrorist group. Such unlimited access wouldn’t be accepted by every nation and even if it were it still wouldn’t protect us against natural occurring biological pathogens of equal or greater capacity for mass death and suffering. Even a Nazi like intrusive presence of international weapons inspectors would be unable to stop a cleaver and committed group from creating the perfect biological weapon.
The panel’s recommendations for improved bioforensic capabilities and strengthening international organizations would be useful in responding to biological mass murder, but ‘preventing’ a bioterrorist event will require two other approaches not mentioned by the Commission.
First, we must stop making so many enemies in the world. This will require powerful international institutions capable of creating a climate of justice, shared security and protection of basic human rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Such an environment would give poor people as well as the rich a direct incentive and the capacity to reporting any suspicious actors or actions.
Second, new international institutions endowed with the capacity of enforcing globally agreed upon standards of control, intelligence gathering and incident reporting must be created. Without adequate funding and enforcement capacity, such institutions would be as anemic as the UN is today in stopping transnational threats.
In summary, we need to make more friends, less enemies, and globally enforceable world laws.

Bioterrorism within 5 years.

A new report from the congressionally mandated bi partisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism (created last spring in keeping with one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission) has just concluded in the opening sentence of the executive summary:
“Unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.”
The final result of this six-month study headed by former Senators Bob Graham (D-FL), and Jim Talent (R-MO) correctly faults the Bush administration for failing to devote the same degree of high-level attention and resources to the threat of bioterrorism as it has to nuclear threats. But, the panel’s 13 recommendations falter themselves by suggesting it’s possible to secure dangerous pathogens and tighten oversight of high-containment laboratories by strengthening international organizations. International organizations will have to have unlimited access to every nation, every laboratory and every cave in the world to eliminate all bioterrorist threats. And this won’t protect us from natural occurring biological pathogens of mass destruction. And it’s questionable if even a Nazi like intrusive presence of weapons inspectors would be able to stop to cleaver and committed group from creating the perfect genocidal gene targeting biological weapon.
The panel’s recommendations for improved bioforensic capabilities and strengthening international organizations will be useful, but ‘preventing’ a bioterrorist event will require two other approaches not mentioned by the Commission.
First, not making so many enemies in the world. This will require powerful international institutions capable of creating a climate of shared security and protection of basic human rights. An environment where poor people as well as the rich have a direct incentive to reporting any suspicious actors or actions. Second, the creation of international institutions endowed with the capacity of enforcing globally agreed upon standards of control, intelligence gathering and incident reporting. In summary, we need to make more friends, less enemies, and enforceable world laws.