This is quietly informing us?

Anti-terror officials in the U.S. cite this summer and fall's lineup of two major political parties' conventions, November's general election and months of transition into a new presidential administration as cause for heightened awareness and action.

This is what the Department of Homeland Security is quietly declaring a Period of Heightened Alert, or POHA, a time frame when terrorists may have more incentive to attack.

Well... I guess it's better than running around screaming that the malls of America are under attack but would we please go shopping anyway, or sending Skeletor out to tell us his gut tells him we're all going to die but please go shopping anyway.

But talk about hinting to the terrorists that now would be a really good time to attack because then a Republican would win....

So... how much money did we lose on this great idea?

20 million? Or 860 million? (my bold)

TUCSON, Ariz. - A $20 million prototype of the government's highly touted "virtual fence" on the Arizona-Mexico border is being scrapped because the system is failing to adequately alert Border Patrol agents to illegal crossings, officials said.

The move comes just two months after Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced his approval of the fence built by The Boeing Co. The fence consists of nine electronic surveillance towers along a 28-mile section of border southwest of Tucson.

Boeing is to replace the so-called Project 28 prototype with a series of towers equipped with communications systems, new cameras and new radar capability, officials said.

[snip]

Boeing was awarded an $860 million contract to provide the technology, physical fences and vehicle barriers.

"Boeing has delivered a system that the Border Patrol currently is operating 24 hours a day," Boeing spokeswoman Deborah Bosick said. She declined further comment.

Project 28 was not intended to be the final, state-of-the-art system for catching illegal immigrants, Giddens said. "I think some people understood that and some didn't. We didn't communicate that well."

We shouldn't have expected it to work?? WTF?

When will we just dig a ditch and put sharpened sticks in it? Outfit rabbits with lazers? Start laying land mines?

Good grief.

Update: Bryan of Why Now? says it better.

Real ID churns on

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who was unveiling final details of the REAL ID Act's rules on Friday, said that if states want their licenses to remain valid for air travel after May 2008, those states must seek a waiver indicating they want more time to comply with the legislation.

Chertoff, as he revealed final details of the REAL ID Act, said that in instances where a particular state doesn't seek a waiver, its residents will have to use a passport or a newly created federal passport card if they want to avoid a vigorous secondary screening at airport security.

"The last thing I want to do is punish citizens of a state who would love to have a REAL ID license but can't get one," Chertoff said. "But in the end, the rule is the rule as passed by Congress."

Chertoff spoke as he discussed the details of the administration's plan to improve security for driver's licenses in all 50 states — an effort delayed due to opposition from states worried about the cost and civil libertarians upset about what they believe are invasions of privacy.

Under the rules announced Friday, Americans born after Dec. 1, 1964, will have to get more secure driver's licenses in the next six years.

The Homeland Security Department has spent years crafting the final regulations for the REAL ID Act, a law designed to make it harder for terrorists, illegal immigrants and con artists to get government-issued identification. The effort once envisioned to take effect in 2008 has been pushed back in the hopes of winning over skeptical state officials.

Gut feelings

What is wrong with this picture?

Still, Chertoff said there are not enough indications of an imminent plot to raise the current threat levels nationwide. And he indicated his remarks were based on "a gut feeling" formed by past seasonal patterns of terrorist attacks, recent al-Qaida statements, and intelligence he did not disclose.

There is an assessment "not of a specific threat, but of increased vulnerability," he added.

I couldn't put into words what was wrong until I thought of these:

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

Would lose some of its punch if Roosevelt talked about vague gut feelings and vulnerabilities and encouraging fearful reactions, wouldn't it?

Try this one:

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility-I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it-and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

Or this:

"The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."

A call to arms or a demand for vigilance does not mention strange intestinal rumplings.

As citizens we rally about a leader who knows how to lead, who has a plan or process that will deal with unknown problems and can communicate those plans to us. Bush has proved he himself cannot lead. He cannot win without cheating:

“Even if he loses, his friends say, he doesn’t lose. He’ll just change the score, or change the rules, or make his opponent play until he can beat him.”

So when Chertoff says feebly that he has a gut feeling and for us to keep on shopping, we wonder what they know and why they aren't telling us. Are they actually asking for terrorists to strike?

The Bush administration and Cheney himself might think that another terrorist attack might shut up Bush haters and rally the nation, but at this point, an attack would just point out Bush's incompetence.

Update: Wait a minute. Al-Qaeda hasn't gained strength says Bush and Chertoff. Just enough to make you afraid, not enough to indicate failure....

Update: Mapaghimagsik has the fitting cartoon.

Europe doesn't trust us?

I thought they were our bestest buds..... :

The post-Sept. 11 flight data sharing agreement between the US and EU expires in July. But a new agreement is nowhere in sight. The Americans want to know even more, and the Europeans want to tell them even less.

[snip]

The idea for an agreement on air passenger data-sharing goes back to the period of hysteria that followed the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. At the time, the United States demanded that foreign airlines transfer entire packets of data on travellers to the US, so potential terrorists could be tracked. Currently, airlines transfer 34 pieces of data, including postal addresses, email addresses and credit card numbers, as well as food preferences and a list of unboarded flights -- the "no-shows." This agreement expires in July.

[snip]

Even the existing agreement is seen with some skepticism in the European Parliament. And the myriad concerns and questions raised during the brief question and answer session following Chertoff's talk showed just how deep that skepticism runs. Most striking, however, was that the session repeatedly turned into an obscure, would-be trial about the US's many lapses over the past years: From Abu Ghraib and illegal kidnappings by the CIA to gun laws, every gripe was fair game. Chertoff ignored just as many questions as he answered.

And the sensitive issue of passenger data went unsolved.

[snip]

While the EU position is largely informed by privacy concerns, the US negotiators are backed by a number of compelling arguments. The foiled terror attack last summer, in which terrorists planned to explode up to 10 trans-Atlantic flights originating in Britain, is seen by the US as only the most recent example of the dangers air traffic still poses. They repeatedly stress the perils represented by thousands of Pakistanis who, equipped with British EU passports, can travel freely wherever they like -- including to a Jihadist training camp in Pakistan and, afterwards, to the US. American authorities say that visa regulations and the sharing of passenger data could close this security loophole.

[snip]

After the experiences of 9/11, US investigators are especially interested in more information on "no show" flights. In 2001, the 9/11 hijackers reserved flights for several days in a row, but then didn't show up as they were waiting for the appropriate weather. The US authorities also insist on the need for earlier data transfer, since the data have to be introduced into the so-called "Automatic Targeting System" in Washington, which contains suspicious data combinations and a list with the names of known terror suspects. That kind of data analysis makes earlier transfer absolutely essential, US authorities say.

Additional measures are already being debated openly in the US. For example, a plan for a simplified online questionnaire for flight passengers from the EU and other countries is currently before Congress. The plan would require passengers to submit a completed questionnaire detailing previous travel destinations along with other pieces of information to the Department of Homeland Security via the Internet two days before the flight. The advantage of this model is that passengers could be told before the departure of their flight that they won't get a visa, Chertoff said in Brussels.

Still, Chertoff's day in the European Parliament wasn't enough to win over the skeptics. Center-left parliamentarian Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler called Chertoff's performance "high cinema that raised more questions than it answered." The politician's main criticism was that the US is basically blackmailing Europe. In his view, Washington is forcing a simple alternative on the EU states: "My way or the highway." That is not, he says, the way to a solution, even if the deadline looms.

Boy, we get one massively incompetent administration in power and nobody trusts us. Sheesh! It's not like we'd misuse the private information or anything.... honest....