Lowering the Bar

Hand-Held Lie Detector Deployed: Now We're Completely Safe

If you have been taking any comfort in the idea that our strategy in the War on Terror can't get any worse, cut it out.  MSNBC reported recently that the Pentagon has spent $2.5 million to date on a project that will provide hand-held lie detectors to U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.  While that may seem like an expensive and stupid idea, according to a professor who headed a National Academy of Sciences study on polygraphs the project is now ready for deployment:

"I don't understand how anybody could think that this is ready for deployment," said statistics professor Stephen E. Fienberg, who headed a 2003 study by the National Academy of Sciences that found insufficient scientific evidence to support using polygraphs for national security. "Sending these instruments into the field in Iraq and Afghanistan without serious scientific assessment, and for use by untrained personnel, is a mockery of what we advocated in our report."

Well, maybe I read that wrong.

The "Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening System," or PCASS, is a sort of mini-polygraph with sensors strapped to the subject's hand, and a hand-held readout.  Unlike the polygraph's complex, multivariable graph that must be interpreted by a trained user, the PCASS offers this:

If you guessed that "Red" means the subject is lying, congratulations!  You are now a fully qualified interrogator.

Actually, according to something called the "Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment," there is a little more to it than that.  PCASS operators must have a full week of training and, if possible, a high-school diploma.  By contrast, polygraph operators must have college degrees, experience in law enforcement, pass a 13-week course in the device and do a six-month internship before being allowed to use their unreliable device.  But then training is less important now: "the Defense Department says PCASS is simple to operate, because judgment of truthfulness is left to the computer."  With humans out of the loop, you see, there is nothing to worry about.

To find terrorists, a PCASS operator simply asks the detainee a series of "20 or so questions in Persian, Arabic, or Pashto" (if he speaks any of those), such as the following:

• "Do you intend to answer my questions truthfully?"
• "Are the lights on in this room?"
• "Are you a member of the Taliban?"

That should cover it.  Red = possible terrorist.  Green = definite non-terrorist.  Yellow = "inconclusive."  According to studies, there are many yellow readings, although the Pentagon helpfully excluded them when calculating the alleged accuracy rate of the device.

The report did not say what the other 17 or so questions were, but here are some guesses:

• "When did you stop being a terrorist?"
• "How much do you hate America?"
• "Do you know where Osama bin Laden is not hiding?"
• "Today is backwards day. Are you a member of the Taliban?"

The device's sponsors admit the thing is not perfect, and say it wasn't intended to be.  According to Donald Krapohl of the DACA, it's intended only for preliminary assessments, and even if its accuracy is, say, only around 60 percent, that is still better than relying on the alternative, human intuition.  "[L]et's get rid of the PCASS because it makes errors, and go back to the approach we're currently using, which has less accuracy?  As you can see, that's really quite untenable."  Think about that when you are getting ready for your next jury trial.

Stephen Feinberg,  the freedom-hating professor quoted above, claimed that he, too, wants to find terrorists and to protect American troops.  But, he says, the troops "need devices that work.  And if they rely on things that really don't work, and act as if they do, we will have a greater disaster on our hands than we already do in the field in Iraq."

Speaking of things that really don't work, and act as if they do, Congress was told in November that the PCASS had been approved for field use, but no hearings on the matter have ever been held.

Link:  MSNBC.com

FBI Said Ready to Take Decisive Action to Protect Federal Officials From Noogies

On March 21, the Boston Globe reported that, after a year-long investigation by the Justice Department, the FBI has concluded that three FBI agents should be terminated for a noogie one of them delivered to a federal prosecutor in 2006.

In other news, the government evidently has people to spare from the search from Osama bin Laden, and/or those wanting to smuggle him nuclear material, in order to help defend our nation's noggins.

According to the Globe, the incident took place in the federal courthouse in Boston.  As a meeting between the agents and a federal prosecutor was concluding, one of the agents "came up behind her, wrapped his arm around her neck and gave her a Three-Stooges-style noogie," as it was described by the Globe's anonymous sources.  (The device-assisted noogie depicted here is no longer used, except at Guantanamo.)  Charges apparently followed.

It will come as no surprise that the noogie-deployer was male (FBI profilers say 97% are), but it is unclear whether the fact that the prosecutor was female explains the result.  The DOJ was investigating whether the incident was "foolish horseplay, bullying, or harassment," but the only conclusion reported was that the offender "acted inappropriately when he put his hands on the prosecutor."  (Why that conclusion took a year to reach is not entirely clear.)  Probably more important is the fact that the agents do not seem to have been truthful about what happened, which would mean that, as is so often the case, the noogie cover-up has turned out to be worse than the noogie itself.

There does seem to be something deeper going on here, but no one is talking about it directly.  At the  time, the noogie-giver was (believe it or not) the head of the Boston office's Organized Crime Strike Force.  Based on what I learned from "The Departed" - which I have seen twice - there has been some trouble with police corruption in Boston.  The Globe, digging a little deeper, recalled that the OCSF prosecuted gangster "Whitey" Bulger, whose former FBI "handler" is already in prison for conspiring with Bulger.  That whole business seems to have left deep divisions between the FBI and DOJ, which may or may not have affected the interpretation of the 2006 noogie incident.

Like bin Laden, Bulger's current whereabouts are unknown.  But the year-long investigation of the people they could find will reportedly result in termination.  As of March 20, the FBI said no one had been fired, but would not discuss the matter any further.  The agents would have 60 days to appeal.

Link: Boston Globe

How Client-9 Was Caught

NPR had an interesting segment this morning (March 12) as to how Client-9, formerly known as Eliot Spitzer, was found out.  As you might expect, our old friend the USA Patriot Act had a part to play, helping fulfill its mission of keeping America safe from the emperors' clubs that threaten our way of life.  But there is more to that story.

You probably know that cash transactions of more than $10,000 have to be reported, but if, like me, you thought your many cash transactions totaling $9,999 were off the radar, think again.  NPR interviewed bank officials who said that bank software scrutinizes every transaction -- that's every transaction, whether you're withdrawing money you're going to use to rent "Kristen" or buying a croissant with your debit card -- and flags any transaction that is part of a pattern that the software deems "suspicious."  Client-9's frequent cash transfers -- each less than $10,000 but possibly adding up to as much as $80,000 -- were flagged by this software and this triggered a money-laundering investigation.  As it turned out, something probably needed to be laundered, but it wasn't money.

As NPR reports, part of this system was put in place by the USA Patriot Act.  Number of terrorists caught plotting (to date): [classified].  Number of governors caught cheating (to date): one.  Further proof that the USA Patriot Act is [classified].

But the irony lies in the source of another part of that same tracking system, which, it turns out, was put in place as a result of investigations into corporate financial practices by a certain zealous former New York attorney general.  Who is also, as of this morning, a former New York governor.  The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.

Andy Borowitz foreshadowed today's announcement with his post yesterday about Spitzer's tearful resignation from the Emperor's Club.

Link: NPR.org (audio)
Link: Get Yourself a Client-9 T-Shirt

FBI Rejects Waterboarding In Favor of Starbucks

Writing on the New York Times website Tuesday, Mike Nizza discussed the revelation that in contrast to the CIA's admitted use of techniques like "waterboarding" to try to get information out of Al Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo, FBI interrogators used less coercive tactics.  Namely, giving the men "food whenever they were hungry" and, on occasion, even Starbucks coffee.

Maybe there is more to this story -- like maybe once the suspects got used to Starbucks, they threatened them with having to go back to Gitmo-blend coffee unless they talked.  That might still be cruel and unusual.

As Nizza points out, the Starbucks detail is interesting for a couple of reasons.  First, there is now officially nowhere on the planet that does not have a Starbucks.  (Guantanamo also reportedly has a gift shop, which is good to know.)  Second, if the FBI has been successful this way -- and 60 Minutes reported recently that a tactic called "conversation" also worked with Saddam Hussein -- are the CIA tactics necessary or even a good idea (setting aside whether they are legal)?

According to the Washington Post, an FBI team has been working with the suspects since 2006, attempting to get incriminating information that the CIA had already obtained, but without using any controversial techniques in the hopes that the admissions would hold up in court.  Whether or not the information has already been tainted by the earlier tactics, though, remains to be seen, according to a former judge advocate general who spoke to the Post.  "Once you torture someone," he said, "it is hard to un-torture them."

On the other hand, Justice Scalia thinks we should not be such pansies about this "so-called torture," as he referred to it in a BBC interview.  "Is it really so easy to determine," he said, "that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the Constitution?"  Turns out that's a rhetorical question.  "It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that," he continued, "and once you acknowledge that, we're into a different game."  Sounds like pretty clear guidance -- if you are a character on "24."

So, today's lesson is that if you have time to interrogate a suspect, you should be nice and bring him Starbucks; but if the bomb is ticking, feel free to smack him in the face.  Don't say you never learned anything from reading Lowering the Bar.

Link: The Lede (NYT)
Link: Download the podcast of Justice Scalia re: smacking terrorists in the face

Smuggler Calls Customs Officers to Ask If They've Seen His Cocaine-Filled Backpacks

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents do not seem to have been too concerned originally about Leroy Carr.  True, they did notice him crossing the Canadian border four different times this year, each time carrying thousands of dollars in cash.  They also noticed that he was carrying night-vision goggles and a "GPS device programmed with coordinates for a well-known drug-smuggling trail."  Seems to me that would be probable cause, even here in the Ninth Circuit, but they let him go each time.  If this was part of a sting operation, the article didn't say anything about it.

Rest easy, O Reader, for thus doth the steel curtain erected around our homeland remain impermeable.

In August, though, Carr called them.  According to a complaint filed this week, Carr called the agency and told agents that he had stashed two blue backpacks containing 68 pounds of cocaine, likely intended for Lindsay Lohan, by the entrance to a camp near the Canadian border.  He said he had returned the next day to find they were gone.  Apparently, Carr was having some trouble convincing the "organization" he was working for that the backpacks had actually been stolen, and by someone other than Leroy Carr.  So he had called to ask whether the agency would put out a news release saying that federal agents had found the drugs and confiscated them, thus putting him in a (slightly) better position with his employers.

The story did not say whether the agency did this (although I note that Carr is still alive), but it seems unlikely because the feds had not in fact found the drugs.  Upon learning this, I assume that after an awkward silence or perhaps an inquiry into the weather and/or the agents' thoughts as to how the Packers might do this year, Mr. Carr then bid the agents farewell.

A Boy Scout found the backpacks two weeks later, and, being a Boy Scout, called the authorities.  Finally having the evidence they needed, customs agents arrested Carr last weekend and charged him with possession with intent to distribute.

There does not appear to be a merit badge yet for Homeland Security.  The closest matches I can find seem to be Emergency Preparedness, Law, Crime Prevention, or maybe Bugling, in case you need to alert federal agents to an unauthorized border crossing.  Sadly, I note that the Beekeeping and Rabbit Raising badges have been discontinued, although it is hard to see how those would contribute at all to the War on Terror anyway.

Link:  MSNBC.com
Link:  ICE!

Canadians Get More Leeway to Joke in Airport-Security Lines

Last week, The Canadian Press (like our Associated Press, but Canadian) reported on a bulletin issued in May by the Canadian Air Transport Safety Authority that urged staff to use more discretion when reporting someone for making jokes about airport security.  It seems that some airport screeners have been too quick to order an arrest simply because a particular word was used, even if it probably did not signify a real threat.

The bulletin, an internal CATSA document recently obtained by the Press under Canada's Access to Information Act, tells screeners to distinguish between "false declarations," which are illegal and should lead to arrest, and "careless or inflammatory statements," which should result only in a warning.  If careless or inflammatory statements are made, a screener should "inform the person that he or she could commit a serious offense saying such words at an airport," but then continue the regular screening process without sounding the alarm.

Responding to questions from reporters, a spokeswoman for CATSA said the clarification was issued because screening officers were not considering the context in which a particular word or phrase was used, and so were "a little bit too quick on the trigger."  Now, she said, officers should "evaluate[] the entire context and . . . not simply [be] triggered by the word 'bomb.'"  She compared the warning that will now be given in response to a careless or inflammatory statement to something called a "yellow card" in "soccer," apparently a kind of sporting event in countries that aren't America.

To date, I haven't been able to find a copy of the actual bulletin, but the recent summaries describe it as providing lists of the kinds of statements that might fall into each category.  Based on these lists, it sounds like this bulletin has probably served as a very helpful guide to Canadian airport screeners.

For example, the statement, "I have a bomb in my bag" will result in arrest.  But the statement "There's no bomb in my shoe," will not.  You see, "I have a bomb" is a "false declaration," at least if you don't really have a bomb, and therefore is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 under the Canadian Aeronautics Act.  But the statement "I don't have a bomb" is not a false declaration (again, this is if you don't really have a bomb), and so the speaker will get only a warning.  So, if I understand correctly, someone who claims to have a bomb, but doesn't, will get arrested; while someone who claims not to have a bomb, but does, will get a warning, and a boarding pass.  A system carefully crafted for your protection, ladies and gentlemen.

Here are a few more examples -- all taken from the bulletin -- so you can compare and contrast:

     Legal:   "My gun misfired when I was hunting this weekend."
     Illegal:  "The man in seat 32F has a machine gun."

     Illegal:  "There's a bomb in the washroom!"
     Legal:  "Your hockey team is going to get bombed tonight!"

     Legal:  "What do you think I look like, a terrorist?"
     Illegal: "The person over there is a terrorist."

     Illegal: "I'm going to hijack this airplane over the Atlantic."
     Legal:  "Hi, Jack!"

Clear enough?  Hard to say.  Dumb enough?  Yes.  Airport screeners, listen up: if someone gets off a plane and says something to you like, "Say, I'm in seat 32E -- no, it's quite comfortable, thank you very much, but damned if the gentleman in the window seat isn't cleaning an AK-47.  And first I thought to myself, here I had to throw away half my toiletries because they were not in 3-ounce containers, and my bloody seatmate didn't even have to check his machine gun, but then I thought perhaps I should mention the potential risk," maybe your first reaction should be to see who's in seat 32F before you arrest this possible joker, let alone give a yellow card to somebody who said "Hi" to his friend "Jack."

Other illegal comments to beware of:

• "I've got plastic explosives that can blow up this airport."
• "You better look through my suitcase carefully, because there's a bomb in there."
• "The bag I checked in upstairs contains an improvised explosive device."  (Terrorists are always making these kinds of hilarious jokes.)
• "Screener: What's in that bottle?  Passenger: Liquid explosives."
• "Passenger: Knock, knock.  Screener: Who's there?  Passenger: Allah.  Screener: Allah who?  Passenger: Allahu akbar!"

Okay, I made that last one up.  Finally, my favorite illegal statement example from the bulletin:

• "I am going to set fire to the airplane with this blowtorch."

You know what?  If somebody actually says that at the security checkpoint with a blowtorch in his hand ("Screener: Which blowtorch?  Passenger: this blowtorch"), you won't hear any complaints from me if you just go ahead and arrest him.  No lengthy investigation necessary.

Finally, it is at least good to know that the sentence:

• "This security does nothing to stop hijacking."

Is still legal to say.  At least in Canada.

Link: Reuters via Yahoo! News
Link: Canadian Press via Orleans Star (Ottawa)

Fake-Lawsuit Plan Derailed by Chance, Stupidity

There are plenty of concocted, fraudulent lawsuits out there, which have negative consequences for society, the legal system, and Wendy's chili profits, but few of these plots are as dumb as the one hatched by Duane Haffner and Leotis Allen, from my home state of Missouri.

The Plan:

Haffner would call police to "tip them off" that a man fitting Allen's description would be at the county courthouse the next day with a bomb in his shoe.  Allen would then visit the courthouse, presumably walking strangely, and would be tackled/assaulted/roughed up/given "smart lumps" by police and would then sue for injuries he incurred in the struggle.  Allen would give Haffner $25 for making the call and Allen would handle the lawsuit.  What could go wrong?

What Could Go Wrong:

1. A jury might not look favorably on someone who was involved in a bomb threat.
2. There might actually be a law against making bomb threats.
3. A detective might wonder why a real terrorist would employ a tiny "shoe bomb," which might be dangerous to a plane, but to a courthouse, not so much.
4. A detective might recognize Haffner's voice on the phone.
5. The same detective might know where Haffner was staying.
6. Haffner might tell police it was Allen's idea.
7. There is a law against making bomb threats.
8. And an even tougher law against making "terroristic threats."
9. Which you might get convicted of doing.

This plot only got near a courthouse during trial, after which both men were sentenced to several years in jail under the law against "terroristic threats."  These are defined under Missouri law as "statements made for the purpose of frightening 10 or more people."  (Nine people?  Fine.  10 or more?  Terrorism.)  Haffner ended up with five years, while Allen got four, which seems a little unfair since it was all Allen's idea.

Even the prosecutor, improbably named "Morley Swingle," seemed to think that using this particular statute on Haffner and Allen might be a bit much, saying, "This was more a crime of stupidity rather than terrorism."  Still, he felt the plot needed to be taken very seriously.  "My feeling," he said, "is that 9/11 took all the humor out of bomb threats."  I think he's saying that if we stop laughing at bomb threats, the terrorists win.  At least, that's how I'd like to interpret it.

Link: CBS News

Terrorism Charge Against 15-Year-Old Blamed on Daylight Savings Time

Cody Webb, a student at Hempfield High School in Pennsylvania, was arrested in March after authorities said a phoned-in bomb threat had been traced to the Webb number.  Cody was summoned to the principal's office and then escorted out of the building in front of his friends.  He spent nearly two weeks in juvenile detention, and criminal charges were filed.

But then they were unfiled, after Cody's heroic attorney, Tim Andrews, pointed out that the times of the calls actually did not match because the school had forgotten about daylight savings time.

Daylight savings time, according to Wikipedia, was thought up by Ben Franklin in 1784 as a joke, but was eventually taken seriously and forced upon the rest of the world by members of the golfing cult, who insist on getting up as early as possible to hit a ball around a field with a stick.  The non-golfing benefits of DST are debatable and most of the world does not bother with it.

Areas In Thrall to the Golfing Oligarchy
(Blue = Enslaved; Red = Free; Orange = No Good Courses Anyway)

DST was abolished in Kazakhstan in 2005, apparently based on a variety of "health concerns," and there must have been something to that because its president was then reelected with 92 percent of the vote, and anyone who's been elected president of a country must know what he's doing.  On the other hand, he is a criminal, and this is a country that did not figure out for quite some time that Borat was kidding.

Among the drawbacks of DST is the need to remember about it, which is what tripped up the Hempfield authorities.  Webb had admitted he called in, but said he had called the school's hotline to find out whether bad weather would force classes to be cancelled.  When authorities re-checked the call log, they confirmed that Webb's call was almost exactly one hour before the threatening call came in.

The assistant DA on the case said he moved to dismiss the charges as soon as the mistake was found, by which time Cody had been sitting in jail for twelve days.  Police said that in light of this new evidence, they were "investigating another possible origin of the call," presumably someone who actually made it.  Cody, looking appropriately sullen in the video at the link below, said he felt "betrayed" by the school.  "At this point," he continued, "I don't think I'll ever go back there at all."  Probably, he has.

Link: WTAE Pittsburgh
Link: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Lodi Nut Company to Close Gift Shop Due to Terrorism Concerns

The Lodi Nut Company, of Lodi, California, says it will be forced to close its factory gift shop at the end of this month because the cost of complying with Homeland Security regulations is too high.  Terrorists are not yet known to have directly targeted American nuts, but company president Kelly Suess said this week that because the company manufactures food, extensive post-9/11 regulations apply.  "They're trying to protect the entire food chain," Suess said.

The regulations require the company to register with the government, enforce employee ID requirements, and install surveillance cameras and electronic gates, among other things.  Any individual customer wishing to buy from the gift shop would have to register personally at the plant office.  Similar access restrictions have already forced the company to end its program of public tours of the factory, which is sad, although it does not say that much for the overall excitement level in Lodi if Nut Factory tours are fully booked to begin with.

The company has now decided to close up the gift shop too rather than incur the additional expense of complying with security regulations there.  You may still be able to order nuts online or by calling 1-800-WALNUTS, but the gift shop may soon be a thing of the past.  The security threat it posed will be eliminated, at least, but as this picture shows (click to enlarge it), there is still a little work to be done on securing the company's holiday boutique.

Link: Lodi News-Sentinel
Link: Lodi Nut Company
Link: Scott Horst (VP for LoTB Photoshop Operations)

Batman Eludes Phoenix Police

The Associated Press reported on Wednesday that three Phoenix-area schools were put "on lockdown" after a middle-school student reported seeing a person dressed as Batman run across the school grounds, jump over a fence and disappear into the desert.  The student described the allegedly caped crusader as being 6 feet 3 inches tall and possibly male.  "We're assuming it was male," said a police spokesman, "although they did have a mask on."  Authorities locked down the middle school and a nearby elementary school and high school while they searched for Batman, but though they "combed the desert" near the schools, Batman had vanished.

Here are some things we may or may not be able to learn from this story:

1. Phoenix police will do pretty much whatever middle-school students tell them to do;
2. Phoenix police are unclear as to the best way to determine whether a suspect is male or female, and are not so good with pronouns, either;
3. Phoenix has a procedure for putting elementary schools "on lockdown"; and
4. We are probably not controlling our borders all that well if we can't find somebody running through the desert in broad daylight dressed as Batman.

The spokesman tried to downplay the latter problem, however.  "It's just one of those interesting little stories that we looked into but we couldn't find anyone," he said.  Well, they did have a mask on.  But hey, don't admit failure yet.  Asked in December about a similarly interesting little story, combing the desert for Osama bin Laden, Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend flatly denied that we have "failed" to find him.  "I don't know that I view that as a failure," she told CNN.  "It's a success that hasn't occurred yet."

That's the spirit.

Link: AP via SFGate.com

Manila Airport Security Apprehends German Pants-Dropper

Upgraded security procedures at Manila International Airport are being credited for the apprehension of Hans Jurgen Oskar von Naguschewski, a 66-year-old German tourist who got so fed up with it that he dropped his pants before walking (or more likely shuffling) through the X-ray machine.

"He must have been annoyed that he was asked to walk through the X-ray twice," said airport security chief Angel Atatubo, showing the kind of powerful deductive reasoning skills that are so important in protecting us from terrorists and elderly unpanted German tourists.  Oskar certainly did not get far.  He was detained, missed his flight to Frankfurt and spent all weekend in jail.  Authorities charged him with "lasciviousness," a charge that apparently carries a penalty of up to six years in jail.

He was to appear in court sometime on Monday, presumably fully clothed.

Link: AP via FindLaw.com

Leftish, Sentimental, Naive Big-Firm Partners Insist on Doing Pro-Bono Work for Nation's Possible Enemies

In a radio interview last week, Charles "Cully" Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said that companies should consider boycotting major law firms that represent suspected terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay.  He also suggested that some of these firms are receiving money for this work from unknown and suspicious sources.

Let's get one thing out of the way: attacking these firms for their pro bono representation of criminal defendants is so stupid and irresponsible that even the Pentagon (not known for going to the mat for detainee rights) has disavowed Stimson's comments.  A spokesman said today that Stimson's words "do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the thinking of its leadership [above the deputy assistant secretary level, at least]."

Stimson told Federal News Radio that he found it "shocking" that lawyers at the nation's top firms were defending the detainees, and that he foresaw a boycott.  "I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms," he said.  (He left out the word "accused" in front of "terrorists" in order to save time, probably.)

Asked why he thought the firms were doing this, he said he wasn't sure.  "It's not clear, is it?  Some will maintain that they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart -- that they're doing it pro bono, and I suspect they are," he said.  (Note: they are.)  "Others are receiving monies from who knows where and I'd be curious to have them explain that."  He discounted reports of mistreatment and false accusations as "little protests" "drummed up" by liberal groups and media outlets.

Among the left-wing America-hating drug-influenced lawyers involved with this effort are members of hippie firms like Covington & Burling; Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw; Blank Rome; Manatt, Phelps & Phillips; and Shearman & Sterling, all firms that are so hard up for cash that they'd have to represent anybody who came calling.  These and several other firms were named in a recent piece in the conservative National Review, which might be where Stimson got this idea.  What drives these attorneys to do pro bono work for the accused?  "While some attorneys seem driven by a leftish quest for 'social justice,'" said the Review, "others seem intoxicated by a volatile blend of sentimentalism and naivete."  Yes, that's just how I would describe most of the big-firm partners I've met.  It's certainly how they've always acted at my performance evaluations.

The Review also pointed out that Mayer, Brown represents the parent of United Airlines, and (just in case anyone had forgotten) also reminded readers that two of United's planes were hijacked on September 11.  Conflict of interest?  Hm.  It did not say whether any of Mayer, Brown's detainee clients, or any of the 395 detainees currently held at Gitmo (380 others have been transferred or released without any charges) actually had anything to do with 9/11, whether they are even accused of having something to do with it, or when any of them will be put on trial so the accusations (if any) can be proven or not proven.

But then these are the kind of nitpicky details that only show I'm a terrorist-lover.

Link: CNN.com

NY Mayor Bloomberg Reveals Existence of "Batphone" to Senate

Testifying on Tuesday before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg told committee members that he has a "very important secure phone" in his kitchen at home for use in case of emergencies.  Specifically, he said (in response to a question about communications issues), "I will say that when I became mayor, I was given a very important secure phone that is in the kitchen of my house, so that if I wanted to talk to the Air National Guard and shoot down a plane, I just press a button."

"A low murmur spread throughout the room," as people tried to figure out whether he was serious.

Bloomberg explained later that the line about him shooting planes down was just a joke (the kind that is hilarious coming from the mayor of a city that has actually been attacked by hijacked planes), but the secure phone, which reporters immediately dubbed "the Batphone," really exists.  Installed in 2002, the phone has an encryption device so that calls to or from other very important secure phones will stay secure.  There is no direct line to the military, and the mayor did not say what it might be used for in an emergency.  In fact, he said, it has never been used in the five years since it was installed -- except by telemarketers. 

"[The Batphone] has never been used," Bloomberg told reporters, "other than to answer an occasional call for -- did I want to subscribe to a ridiculous magazine, buy an insurance policy or some other such particular thing. . . . But it's a regular telephone [apart from the scrambler], so if you don't sign up for the service of, 'Do not call me during mealtimes,' you get lots of calls."  He theorized that the telemarketers who had called him on his very important secure phone had dialed the number at random.

Asked what thoughts go through his mind when the Batphone rings, Bloomberg said, "It's somebody trying to sell insurance.  That's what I think."

He clarified that the secure phone is not red.

Link: New York Times
Link: Reuters via Yahoo! News

Why Not to Slap Fellow Airline Passengers, Reason #1

Wanting to slap fellow passengers (and their crying babies) is entirely understandable, but here's a reason to stop and think before you do it.  A US Airways passenger was arrested yesterday after he threw a "mid-air temper tantrum" on a flight from Washington to Fort Myers, Florida.  The tantrum was for the usual reason -- flight attendants refused to serve the man any more alcohol.  But the tantrum went further than most when the man then got into an argument with a fellow passenger and allegedly slapped him.

The slappee turned out to be an undercover air marshal.  D'oh!

The air marshal "detained the man for the remainder of the flight" -- where was he going to go? -- and arrested him once they got to their destination.  The slapper was to be arraigned today and charged with "interfering with a flight crew" and with interfering with the face of an undercover air marshal.

Link: CNN.com

Toga Party Attendance is Critical in Abu Ghraib Defense

Lt. Col. Steven Jordan is currently on trial for 12 charges relating to the torture -- sorry, "maltreatment" -- of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.  His defense attorneys have argued that Jordan was actually not in charge of the interrogation center at the time of the alleged offenses (between September and December of 2003), and that Col. Thomas Pappas was in charge then.  Given the timing involved, It appears to have become a critical question whether Col. Pappas attended a Halloween 2003 toga party at Abu Ghraib and spoke to the troops to "lift their spirits," that being some evidence that he was the one in charge.

Off the top of my head, three thoughts:

1. It's a little surprising, but maybe shouldn't be, that the Army doesn't really know for sure who was in charge of what and when.  I thought that this was an issue of some importance in the armed forces, but I admit I am not a veteran.  Maybe they just "wing it."
2. It seems highly unlikely that people already at a toga party would need any cheering up, at least at that particular moment.  The idea of a bunch of guys moping around in togas just does not really ring true.
3. They had toga parties at Abu Ghraib.  Sadly, that does ring true.

Jordan, who would have been the "Otter" in the Abu Ghraib version of "Animal House," is the highest-ranking officer to be charged for what happened at Abu Ghraib.  Pappas ("Bluto" Blutarsky) was reprimanded and fined $8,000 for approving the use of dogs during an investigation, but has not been criminally charged.

Undated picture may show Pappas
supervising the 124th Military Intelligence Brigade.

Did I just compare Abu Ghraib to "Animal House"?  Good God.  Although, the AP did it first. I blame the media for its superficial treatment of this important issue.

Link: AP via FindLaw.com

Names on No-Fly List Questioned

Reportedly, on Sunday 60 Minutes will air a segment on the Homeland Security Department that will include a suggestion that the "no-fly list" assembled after 9/11 may not have been put together, and may not be maintained, all that carefully.

The evidence?  Among the 44,000 names on that list are 14 of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom are very likely to be boarding an airplane anytime soon.  Also on the list: Saddam Hussein, who has been in custody for some time now, although I guess it's not impossible that he could escape, come to the United States and then try to board a plane incognito.  And then wouldn't it be embarrassing if he had not been on the list?

Other names mentioned included Evo Morales, currently the president of Bolivia, and Nabih Berri, speaker of Lebanon's parliament.  (Maybe you think that the terrorists won't recruit a head of state to carry a bomb onto a plane, but then maybe that's just what they want you to think.)  And all Gary Smiths, John Williamses, and Robert Johnsons should beware, as those not-uncommon names are all on the list too.

Among the names not on the list, on the other hand, were the 11 British citizens who were actually arrested recently and charged with plotting to blow up airliners flying to the U.S.  So, to review: Fourteen dead former hijackers -- on the list; 11 live real accused hijackers -- not.  There's a good explanation for that, though, according to government officials -- they would not want the list to fall into the wrong hands.  "The government doesn't want that information outside the government," said a spokesperson.  No, that's the last thing you want, to have that information out where somebody might actually use it.

Link: BBC NEWS

Judge Finds Sufficient Evidence to Try Man on Pump-Related Charges

Mardin Amin may face a trial on charges of felony disorderly conduct after an incident at O'Hare Airport on August 16 in which a security official said she heard him state that he had a bomb.  Amin argues that she misheard him because of his heavy accent which leads to trouble distinguishing between the sounds of "p" and "b."  So what she heard, he says, was something like "bump," which sounded to her like "bomb," but was really him saying "pump," which was the sexual device that the official had pulled out of his backpack and was holding up in front of him and his mother.

It really does seem unfair how they keep changing the rules on what you can and can't carry on.

According to Amin's attorney, Arabic speakers (Amin is an Iraqi) sometimes have trouble with "p" and "b," and she herself did not understand what he was talking about until he brought the bump to her office.  The problem was made worse, she says, because Amin was understandably embarrassed to discuss the item in front of his mother, and so he was not enunciating clearly.  Amin has also pointed out that it is relatively unlikely that he would have announced at a security checkpoint that he had a bomb, whether he really had one or not, much less try to explain a merely embarrassing object as a much more dangerous one.

Those seem like pretty good arguments.  Less good was Amin's followup when talking to reporters after the hearing; he told them that he did not think it was a big deal to have (or, apparently, travel with) a bump, because it's so common.  "It's normal," he said.  "Half of America they use it."  No, half of America (which of course would be 100 percent of the men) they do not use it, and those who do probably don't use it in-flight.  Although I don't really know much about what goes on in first class.

Despite the other good arguments Amin has, the Cook County judge ruled this week that there was at least enough evidence for the case to go forward, based on the security guard's testimony that she "clearly" heard Amin say "bomb."  He could face up to three years in prison if convicted.

Link: AP via My Way News

Airport Screeners Directed Not to Touch Your Monkey

The always-vigilant Transportation Security Agency has promulgated rules governing the security procedures to be implemented when a disabled traveler is traveling with a service animal, in case al Queda figures out how to pack a bunch of explosives into a dog or cat or helper monkey.

The TSA's guidelines for helper-monkey security are reproduced below, with one addition that I made up.  If you can guess which one is fake without checking the TSA site, then you would likely qualify as a TSAMHSS (Transportation Security Agency Monkey Helper Security Specialist).  Actually, you could probably qualify with a high-school diploma or equivalent, but try to guess anyway.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monkey Helpers

• When a monkey is being transported in a carrier, the monkey must be removed from the carrier by the handler prior to screening[.]
• The monkey must be controlled by the handler throughout the screening process.
• The monkey handler should carry the monkey through the WTMD [metal detector] while the monkey remains on a leash.
• When the handler and monkey go through the WTMD and the WTMD alarms, both the handler and the monkey must undergo additional screening.
• Since monkeys may likely draw attention, the handler will be escorted to the physical inspection area where a table is available for the monkey to sit on.  Only the handler will touch or interact with the monkey.
• TSOs have been trained to not touch the monkey during the screening process.
• TSOs will conduct a visual inspection on the monkey and will coach the handler on how to hold the monkey during the visual inspection.
• The inspection process may require that the handler take off the monkey’s diaper as part of the visual inspection.   

Okay, they're all real.  And I'm sorry, but if the War on Terror really requires me to potentially search a monkey's diaper, then I surrender.  The terrorists have already won if they have really forced us to choose between security and the freedom not to root around in a chimp's underpants.  I mean, please.

It is sad to know that the TSA will not touch my monkey.  But they can still love him!  Ihn lieben!  Meinen Helferaffen lieben!

Link: Transportation Security Agency
Link: BoingBoing.net

Woman Armed with Gucci Bag Removed from Flight

A spokesman for Cathay Pacific Airlines said they had to call the Hong Kong police to remove a woman from a Tokyo-bound airliner on Monday.  The woman, who was carrying a luxury Gucci handbag, repeatedly refused all requests to put the expensive bag under the seat in front of her or in the luggage compartment.  The flight was delayed for over an hour as she argued with the cabin crew and airport authorities.

The article did not say why the woman refused to stow the bag, although we can probably all guess something in the right ballpark.  Nor did it say whether the woman's four friends (who all had to disembark with her) supported her decision to stand firm.  It did say that when they were escorted off the plane, there was much applause.

The woman later apologized and the five of them were put on a later flight to Tokyo.  No incidents were reported on that flight.

Link: Reuters via My Way News

Officials Shocked to Find Homeland Security Money Was Misused

The Indiana state Homeland Security Department has told officials in Vermillion County to stop using their official Homeland Security Department Electronic Emergency Message Boards to advertise the local volunteer fire department's charity fish fry.

The 11 message boards, which the state department supplied at a cost of $300,000, were intended for various danger-related purposes such as telling people about evacuation routes in the event of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack on the Newport Chemical Depot.  Instead, local officials have used them to advertise the fish fry, a spaghetti dinner fundraiser and an elementary school carnival.  The director of the county's emergency management department said each of the groups reported larger-than-normal turnouts after the message boards were used, so it's good to know the things work.

County commissioners said they should be able to run the county however they like, but Homeland Security officials said that using the signs for other purposes is a violation of federal rules that could deprive the county of federal money, and that it could "dull the public's attentiveness to the boards."  That makes sense -- if you're used to seeing ads for the fish fry, you will probably just ignore something like "TERRORIST ATTACK ON CHEMICAL DEPOT RELEASES DEADLY PLUME OF POISON -- FLEE IMMEDIATELY."  Otherwise, people will be riveted to these things just like they now wake up and check the color-coded "Threat Level" every morning before deciding how much armor to wear that day.

Faced with the loss of federal funds, the county has stopped using the signs for the announcements and commissioners will discuss the matter next week.

Link: AP via MyWay News

Alert Bartender Saves Plymouth, Indiana, From Terrorist Attack

No he didn't.

A (sadly, unnamed) bartender called authorities early Monday morning after he spotted a flashing red light on the wall of a restaurant at Swan Lake Resort in Plymouth, and suspected it to be a bomb.  Thirty-five people were evacuated while authorities investigated.  After about half an hour, they decided the bomb squad was not needed, largely because the flashing red light was coming from a Pabst Blue Ribbon sign on the window of the restaurant.

I question that decision.  Terrorists who did choose to go after Plymouth, Indiana, might well hide a bomb in a PBR sign or keg, and if the bomb squad takes that stuff out and destroys it, at worst you have removed some PBR from the world.  What's the downside?

Anyway, as you would expect, the resort's manager, Doug Leedke, said it was all just a sign of the times in the world after 9/11.  "Our employee saw something unusual and reported it," Leedke said.  Can't be too careful.

Link: AP via MyWay News

TSA Clears Self of Suspicion in Inspection Dispute

I forgot this one from three weeks ago.  Debra Sanders of Clearwater, Florida, has accused the Transportation Security Administration of lax security and improper inspection procedures after she got home from a trip to New Jersey.

She first suspected her bag had been inspected by the TSA when she opened her bag and found a TSA uniform in it.  (Sanders is not a TSA employee.)

Hm.

The good part is that the TSA denies that any of its employees searched the woman's bag, on the grounds that when they search a bag they leave a note inside saying that they did so.  There was no note in Sanders's bag, therefore, no search occurred.  Thank you for contacting us with your concerns.  Please move along.  The report did not say whether the TSA had any explanation as to how a TSA uniform got in the bag, note or no note.

Link: First Coast News (Tampa, FL).

French Invasion of Florida Foiled by Authorities

Sirens wailed as agents from the Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and the FBI converged on an airport in Key West on Wednesday, ready to repel invaders.

The French had returned.  Specifically, two French people, Alexis Peltier and Yves Stindel, who have been flying around the world in a homemade ultralight plane, because . . . well, I don't know.  Peltier is the founder of an environmental group called "Wings for Earth," but this did not appear to be part of anything connected with the group.  They're just flying around.  That's actually what they told the FBI: "We were just flying from Chile to Africa.  It's a long story," said Peltier, before agents "whisked him away for questioning."

Remember the guy who was rowing across the Atlantic Ocean, and then got into trouble two hundred miles short of the other side and called his mommy for help on his cell phone?  He was French, too.

A Customs spokeswoman stated that "there was never any threat and there was no attempt to avoid detection," which I guess is why Border Patrol, Customs and FBI all converged on the airport, sirens wailing.  The report speculated that "U.S. authorities tend to react quickly to unidentified aircraft coming from Cuba."

Link: Reuters.com

The Latest on Your Homeland Security Dollars

The Washington Times reports this week on spending under a loophole in the "Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act," passed last year in the House of Representatives by a vote of 409-10.  The poorly-acronymed FASFFFRA was a real breakthrough, as it requires most first-responder grants to be evaluated and prioritized based on the relative risk of a terror attack.  So, it only took four years to pass legislation linking the money appropriated as a result of a previous terror attack to the relative risk of a future terror attack.  Nice job, Congress.

But wait -- at least one grant program relating to fire departments was exempted from even this legislation, and as the Times reports, at least $25 million has been doled out under that program, without those kinds of priorities.  For example, two local fire departments have received a total of $77,000 to fund "puppet and clown shows," and one in Oregon got $22,000 for an educational robot.  Other departments are using money for nutritional counseling and teaching firefighters "how to become fitness trainers."  And somehow, an organization that provides "breast-cancer screening for low-income Haitian immigrants" got $40,000.  Now, I'm not opposed to such a program, generally speaking; I'm just not sure it quite fits with the particular mission statement.

The director of the Assistance to Firefighters grant program says that Congress does require at least five percent of any such grant to be spent on fire protection funding.  So that's nice.

But, despite that strict requirement, the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste is still not satisfied.  "[I]t's clear a lot of this money could hve been spent more effectively," said Tom Schatz, president of CAGW.  "Puppet and clown shows? . . . People in New York and other major cities will not find this funny at all."  I'm not sure about that last part.

Link: Washington Times

Homeland Security Department at Work Protecting Northern Alabama

In a ceremony Wednesday morning, law-enforcement officers in Homeland Security Region 6 celebrated the fact that additional resources had been provided to secure Region 6 against terror attacks.  So you al-Qaida members who were planning to attack northern Alabama, beware: they got trucks now.

Each of the ten counties in Region 6 received a shiny new truck with the label "Region 6 Law Enforcement" right on the side (maybe on both sides -- you can only see one in the picture), and accompanying equipment that officers said would allow them to defeat the enemy and also fight hurricanes and such like.  "We can take control of a crime scene with just this truck, whether it's a terrorist attack or natural disasters," said Sheriff Bryan Hill of Lawrence County.  (Not sure a natural disaster qualifies as a "crime scene," but I'm not the law-enforcement professional.)  Although one super-truck would certainly be enough, Sheriff Bartlett of neighboring Morgan County allowed as how Region 6 was a whole team, and so "if terrorists strike, all the trucks will respond."

Once the trucks show up, it's game over for Osama and friends, because of the sophisticated anti-terror-and-natural-disaster equipment that the Region 6 team can deploy.  Like, um, lights.  "We've got an emergency generator and emergency lighting," Sheriff Bartlett told reporters.  The truck pictured also appeared to have lights on top, and on the front end, with other reddish lights on the back.  These lights are expected to dazzle any terrorists, who come from countries where lights are rare, and make them easier to subdue.  I guess.

The trucks appeared to be equipped with other stuff too, but exactly what it was and how it would stop terrorists or the next Katrina was not made clear.  Actually, the sheriffs may not be that clear on it either --  Bartlett told reporters the trucks had "crime-scene-technician-type equipment."  You know, like what's on that C.S.I. show,  and like that there.  That type equipment.

The Region 6 super-trucks cost America about half a million dollars, but that's a small price to pay for securing northern Alabama against the looming terrorist threat.

Link: WHNT-TV, Huntsville, AL

Man Detained as Terrorism Suspect After Singing to Cab Driver

In London this week, a taxi driver (always the first line of defense in the War on Terror), alerted police to what he believed was suspicious behavior by his passenger, who he was taking to the airport.  The driver had become alarmed when his passenger sang a song that contained the language "war is declared," "meltdown," and "battle."  After he dropped the passenger off he called police, who escorted the man from the plane.

Turned out the guy liked The Clash.

The passenger, Harraj Mann, told police that the taxi had a music system that allowed him to plug in his MP3 player, and he had been playing music by the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and The Clash, among others.  He had been singing along to "London Calling," the 1979 song that contains the lyrics "London is burning," "Now war is declared, and battle come down," and "meltdown expected," along with a variety of other angry-type punk lyrics.

It is not known to have become an anthem for Muslim terrorists.  Who, it seems to me, are probably smart enough not to announce themselves by loudly serenading their taxi driver about their plans on the way to the airport.

Mann was released after questioning, although he missed his flight.  "He [the driver] didn't like Led Zeppelin or The Clash, but I don't think there was any need to tell the police," Mann told reporters.

Link: Reuters via My Way News.

REPORT: Government Covering Up Truth About 9/11, According to Charlie Sheen

Continuing its recent tradition of crack reporting on the issues of the day, CNN's Headline News is running a segment on allegations that the government has covered up the actual events of 9/11. Its inside source: Charlie Sheen.

Friday's show:
The response to Charlie Sheen's charges of a government
cover up on what really happened on 9/11.
Find out who's praising him for speaking up.

You'd think they would go to a real expert, like Sean Penn or maybe Martin Sheen. At least Martin Sheen played the President on TV.

CNN is also running a "Quickvote" web poll as to whether visitors "agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks." At the time I wrote this, almost 23,000 people had responded. Eighty-two percent of them did in fact agree with Charlie Sheen.

You too can weigh in on this important matter, if you like, by following the link below.

CNN.com

How Your Homeland-Security Money Is Making You Safer

Just kidding -- it isn't.

Four-and-a-half years (most of it spent in long security lines) and umpteen billions of dollars after September 11, the Transportation Security Agency has implemented effective security measures to prevent dangerous materials like explosives from getting onto our nation's airplanes.  According to their website, anyway.  According to federal investigators who recently tested those security measures, problems remain.

Such as, they have a slight problem stopping bombs from getting on airplanes.

 

To be specific, investigators from the Government Accountability Office tested security by deliberately trying to smuggle explosives and other bomb materials through security checkpoints at 21 airports.  Successful smuggles: 21.  That's a smuggle-success rate of approximately 100 percent.  Put another way, it is a smuggle-detection rate of 0 percent.  Or, dollars spent per bomb found: infinity dollars.

Quote from NBC News:

In all 21 airports tested, no machine, no swab, no screener anywhere stopped the bomb materials from getting through.  Even when investigators deliberately triggered extra screening of bags, no one discovered the materials.

Quote from the chairman of the 9/11 Commission (you remember them):

I'm appalled.

Quote from a TSA spokesman in response to the NBC report:

[D]etecting explosive materials and IEDs at the checkpoint is TSA's top priority.

Quote from me:

Hey spokesman dude -- your "top-priority" efforts have resulted in a zero-percent success rate.  How are the other priorities coming along?

So, tell me again: why are we all standing in those long lines?

MSNBC.com
Congressional Budget Office Report on Homeland-Security Spending

TRAVELER ALERT: Heads in Luggage Must Be Declared

"Homeland security" air-travel regulations get more ridiculous all the time.  First, nail clippers are banned.  Then, knives are permitted.  Now, you can get in trouble just for having a severed head in your luggage.  What's next?

A number of readers sent me this story today.  Myrlene Severe, a 30-year-old Haitian-born resident alien, arrived at Fort Lauderdale with someone's head in a bag.  (Tip for travelers: anyone arriving from Haiti with a lumpy bag is probably going to spend some extra time in security.)

There appears to be some disagreement over whether this was a "head" or just a "skull."  Obviously it started out as a head with a skull in it, but thanks to "C.S.I." we know that eventually severed heads evolve into mere skulls.  This one does not seem to have been particularly fresh, which suggests it was closer to "skull," but according to a customs spokeswoman "it still had teeth, hair and bits of skin and lots of dirt" attached, which argues in favor of "head."

In order to get on with it, this report will hereinafter use the term "skeletal head."

Ms. Severe (which seems like an appropriate name for someone carrying around a skeletal head) told authorities that she had obtained the "package" in Haiti for "use as a part of her voodoo beliefs," specifically "to ward off evil spirits."  I don't know much about evil spirits, but I tend to think they would find a skeletal head kind of "neat," as opposed to being warded off by it.  But I'm no expert.

Severe was charged with "transporting hazardous material in air commerce," which is a little hard to understand unless they thought she was going to break down the cockpit door with it or throw it at a flight attendant.  This seems like a general creepiness charge to me.

The other charge was described both as "smuggling a human head into the U.S. without proper documentation," and "failing to declare the head."  Whichever is the formal charge, if convicted of that and the "hazardous material" charge Severe faces up to 15 years in prison.

Yahoo! News