The View From the Outback

• Thoughts While Staring at My Computer
• Thoughts While Staring at a Photo of Osama bin Laden
• The World Trade Center Towers Made of Steel & Wood?
• How Much Training Does It Take to Fly an Airliner From A to B?
• General Aviation - Another Sleeper
• To Get a Mule's Attention, Hit Him With a 2 X 4
• A National ID Card
• We Can't Give in to Terrorists by Making the U.S. a Police State
• The Media Strikes Again
• The Disinformation Conspiracy
• Americans Will Have to Make Sacrifices
• Just Tired
• The World Trade Center & Pentagon Attacks (an update posted the evening of Sept. 11, 2001)
• Suggested Reading From Past Columns

Thoughts While Staring at My Computer

Norton (Symantec) SystemWorks 2002 is on the retail shelves, with a $30 rebate for previous owners. It seems to have several improvements, not the least a more stringent screening of e-mail. It now automatically recognizes major e-mail programs (such as my beloved Eudora 5.1) without setting up a manual proxy and so on. It screens both the incoming and outgoing e-mail (and attachments I assume) for viruses. If more people had this program, it would help blunt the effects of viruses and worms that mail to everybody in your Outlook address book or any e-mail address it can find on your hard drive. Another reason I do not use Outlook or Word.

I installed Netscape 6.1. It has some nice features, but it is beyond my comprehension that it does not have a "print preview" feature like later versions of Internet Explorer. At least I can't find that feature, if it's there. So, I will probably never find version 6.1 very useful, since I print so many pages from the Web. Interestingly, without asking, Netscape imported all my IE 6 Favorites into the Netscape bookmark file. Turnabout is fair play.

The computer market is in the doldrums. I am still using my PIII 800 that I built over a year ago, and can't find any excuse to buy a new computer. There are many like me, some still using P II machines. We have finally caught on that a 2 Gigahertz CPU is useful to only a handful of users. So, a handful of people are buying them. Guys and gals, stop the Gigahertz race and work on the peripherals so they can catch up in handling data at much higher speeds. And it does no good to have a 2 Gig machine to surf the Internet if you are limited to a dialup modem that logs on at only 28.8. I have a friend in Dallas with a 56k modem who can log on only at 26.4 due to the crappy phone lines. I get on at 28.8 here in the Outback. Without my high-speed satellite downloads, I would have long ago attached the hose to the truck exhaust and piped it into the computer room.

Thoughts While Staring at a Photo of Osama bin Laden

It would be a shame if the Taliban turns over Osama bin Laden to face "justice." There is now, I think, a consensus, that the mistake of the past was trying to deal with terrorism as if it were a legal issue. It is a military issue. The "Dead or Alive" poster analogy is off target. He is not that much good to the free world alive. We have "brought terrorists to justice" before. You see where it has gotten us - and the world.

My greatest fear, however, is that the president will order general air strikes and missile strikes on targets in Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq. Seeking justice, or revenge if you will, is fine. But I would hate to see anything done that does not clearly strike directly at terrorists, such as populated training camps. To bomb countries now in an indiscriminate way, just to "punish" them for harboring terrorism would be a terrible mistake. Remember, this is a long-term struggle. Not bomb a few sites and bug out - as has been done in the past. If we don't act with reasonable restraint, we will lose support in the world, which we need for the long haul.

Most would have to agree that the comments I posted on the night of the terrorist attacks (repeated again at the end of this issue of Outback) were a pretty concise summary of the problem areas that lead up to our government having no clue of the impending attack - and of the many areas where we were deficient. I e-mailed a copy of the Sept 11th update to several of the major media that night.

We have already seen many days of "experts" basically expanding on what I said in just a few paragraphs the night of the attacks. With the thousands of hours of air and TV time to fill, everybody is now an "expert." I do not want to spend my time refuting and arguing with the hundreds of commentators and experts who appear on TV and who write columns for newspapers and online Web pages for the major news media. So, I am going to take a hiatus from writing the Outback. Bear with me and I think you will understand why.

I think that it is a fair statement to say that I know more about the interrelationship of criminal investigations, intelligence gathering, airplanes, electronics, computers, firearms, explosives, immigration, border control, and weapons than 98% of the people in the media and most in the Congress. Frankly, I am sick of listening to them pontificate and tired of listening to most of the legions of so-called experts. A few guests have been legitimate experts, and most of the legitimate experts have echoed my remarks about aircraft security and where to lay the blame for our intelligence and investigative failures. But, enough of these experts cannot be found to fill the endless hours of drivel that passes for news commentary on the networks and cable news shows.

My one rule for paying attention is: the expert - other than a bona-fide expert in the government - has to be "formerly" in his or her job and they had to be on the ground and doing real things, not sitting in libraries writing books about terrorism, or interviewing assorted people for TV shows. So, you listen to the guy from the Red Team, I think it was called, who used to try to penetrate airport security on behalf of the FAA, and was nearly always successful. And you listen when the former CIA station chief in Pakistan, during the Russian/Afghan war, tells you about the realities of gathering intelligence and fighting in that area. And so on. Otherwise, rent a movie.

Consider this: I am an ex-Marine, ex-ATF agent, ex-intelligence agent, law graduate, former corporate executive, private pilot, and a person who has flown commercially here and overseas for several decades. I lived, worked, or traveled in about 30 countries. I was trained by three different agencies in the use of explosives and have shot off enough dynamite, C-4, and other explosives to blow up all the buildings in a small town. I learned how to make homemade rocket launchers from scrap lumber and how to effectively use silenced rifles and pistols.

Since the Marines, I have been around guns of all kinds for about 50 years. I have flown small planes in Laos, Hawaii, in several states on the mainland of the U.S., and with the Rome Aero Club in Italy. I have been in the cockpit of a 747 while it was crossing an ocean. I have either flown, or flown in, propeller-driven aircraft, jet fighter trainers, helicopters (in remote areas of SE Asia, among other places), turbo-props and a variety of jetliners to several continents.

I have worked on criminal cases with the ATF, the U.S. Customs, the Secret Service, the FBI, and the old Federal Narcotics Bureau. I worked in cooperation with the internal security services of several foreign countries. I worked on security for two of the tallest skyscrapers in Dallas and on aircraft and hangar security for a multi-national company with jets capable of international flights. I consulted with security officers at Texas Stadium (Cowboys home field) on luxury sky-box security.

I was taught Constitutional and Administrative Law (government admin law) by a brilliant law professor who was once on the short list for the Supreme Court. I got my highest grades in law school in legal research and legislative drafting and worked part- time in the law library. I started writing articles for publication in about 1973.

I appeared on scores of TV and radio programs either as an author or being interviewed on other subjects, such as "Who were the morons who broke into Watergate - and how did they screw up so badly?" I was involved for several years with the number one nighttime TV drama. I have been a ham-radio operator for 50 years and have spoken with people in over 250 countries. At one time, I could get around overseas fairly well by speaking at least some Spanish, French, German, and Italian.

I built my own radio transmitters as far back at the 1950s. I now tend to build my own computers and have been a consultant to several firms, regarding software, hardware and manuals - including a large law firm in Dallas. This is not nearly the totality of my experience, but enough to a make point. Beware of experts. Ask them for a detailed resume. And then have it checked. We have discovered that a lot of high-profile people have lied about their past experience. There are a lot of brave, smart and experienced people in our country. I have listed some of my experience with a sense of humility - in comparison to many braver and smarter people than I - while at the same time trying to make the point about my very broad-based background.

Just one example of a media "expert" who galls me is Dr. Bob Arnot. He is a medical doctor who happens to be a private pilot, and he seems like a really nice fellow. Now, he seems to be the "voice of NBC and MSNBC" about all matters of aviation safety and beyond. (He was one of their experts on the JFK, Jr. plane accident, you may recall. On that subject he was pretty much right on, since he had flown a small plane over the same route as JFK, Jr. had done.)

In an article on September 13 on MSNBC.com, Dr. Bob tells us that one might learn much of what one needs to know about flying a big jet across the sky from using a flight simulator program on a computer - but you would still need some flight training. Later in the column he says that all you might need would be flight training on a simulator on a personal computer. Make up your mind. One of my first comments on the posting of the night of Sept. 11th, said that a 12-year-old learning from Microsoft Flight Simulator, ought to be able to fly a jetliner once it was airborne. In clear weather and in daylight, of course.

Dr. Bob also says that Air Force One was not a target. How absurd. It may not have been the target of a hijacked plane, trying to ram Air Force One, but it is always a prime target of terrorists, probably hoping to get a shot at it with one or more shoulder-fired missiles. Ask the Army how many Stingers missiles are missing from their inventory. The answer will probably be, "We are not sure."

People seem stunned or perplexed that fighter jets have accompanied Air Force One lately. All the baloney about how we cannot give in to terrorists by protecting ourselves, because that means they have won, is insane. If the president ever again flies without a fighter escort, he is foolish. We had a president who chose to ride in an open car in a motorcade. He was killed by a sniper. The Pope used to go around waving from open vehicles, until he was shot. Flying an unarmed 747 with the presidential seal on it is a grand gesture. We need fewer grand gestures and more common sense. Take the fighters along.

We have played this "we are an open and free society" theme for so long, we have become complacent and naive. White House police stand around guarding the president with only pistols in holsters. That lightweight firepower makes me uneasy. Secret Service agents seldom display a weapon. Just because we are a free and open society, does that mean that we cannot openly protect our nation, our leaders, and our people? Being ready for trouble, and showing that you are ready for trouble, does not subvert any of our freedoms - or make us look weak.

The oldest trick in the book for a kid with glasses who is confronted by a bully is to whip off his glasses and toss them on the ground. That is a sign that he is ready to defend himself. Should we not show open signs that we are ready to defend ourselves as a nation? We flaunt our aircraft carriers and bombers all over the world "as symbols of our power." Somehow at home, we take on the attitude that we are a society of laws and individual freedoms and we must keep up some kind of front that "all is peaceful and tranquil on the home front." Well, it ain't anymore. Break out the big guns.

I bet you will see attack helicopters stationed at the Pentagon, CIA HQ, and other places before long. It takes too long to scramble an interceptor jet when a hostile aircraft or vehicle is only a mile or two away. They might be housed in shelters that look like something innocuous.

There ought to be an attack helicopter stationed at the White House. Oh, put a carnival tent over it and say that the area is for garden teas, if that makes you feel less "like a police state." And what is it with the U.S. Marine who greets the president when he alights from the helicopter at the White House? He doesn't appear to be carrying any weapon. Maybe he has a pistol in his pocket. Is the idea that a gun might sag his white belt and make him look untidy? We will see more ground-to-ground and surface-to-air missiles deployed around the country, again perhaps hidden in a "normal" structure.

There is another group in this country that has forced us over the decades to make several changes in the way we live, but nobody talks much about it. That group is the criminal element. They have forced us to give up some of our "freedoms." Over the decades, we can no longer leave the doors to our houses unlocked, many homes have bars on their windows, many have burglar alarms, people buy guard dogs, deadbolt locks were uncommon many years ago and are now omnipresent. Many live in gated communities with guards, even the local newspaper in Dallas has guards and a "badge system." Many people have restricted their movements at night in big cities for fear of crime.

A majority of states now allow qualified citizens to carry concealed handguns. There are theft protection stickers and detection gates that you have to pass through in many stores. If you buy a CD, the clerk has to deactivate or remove the theft device on every CD. The armored-car business is working at nearly full capacity making armored cars for civilians. People no longer leave their shopping packages in the back seat, they put them in the trunk as they continue to shop. Small children are not allowed to walk to or from school for fear of sexual predators. And on and on. We made significant changes in the way we live before the first bomb ever went off in this country. That was in protecting ourselves from our own citizens. Let's not make a big to-do about a few changes needed to protect our country from those bent on destroying it.

To those who say that we should not better arm our cities and institutions, or "the terrorists will have won." To those who say that we should make sure that we do not give up any rights or allow any invasions of personal privacy, or "the terrorists will have won." To those who say that we should not change our way of life, or "the terrorists will have won." I say. When you consider the loss of life, the destruction of public property, the long-lasting shock to our economic system, the long-lasting shock to those who were in the buildings or lost love ones, or even watched the episodes a hundred times on TV - the terrorists have already won the first big battle. A complete victory. The challenge is to not let it happen again. And to go on living our lives as we used to, possibly a little more observant. If we let the terrorists destroy our spirit they will have won the ultimate victory.

The World Trade Center Towers Made of Steel and Wood?

The caption of the photo I printed of the Manhattan skyline says:

"Preferring wood and steel to concrete and brick, American architect Minoru Yamasaki designed buildings with a strong emphasis on aesthetics." Mr. Yamasaki designed the World Trade Center twin towers. Steel and wood?

Something to reflect upon as you sat in wonder how a building could collapse upon itself so rapidly once it was severely damaged and set on fire. The Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, a very large airplane. We hear from the experts that the fire was so intense that the steel beams and girders melted or buckled. Someone needs to consider how much of the intense heat was generated by wood in the building, if it was used extensively. Engineers and architects are at work on providing such answers.

In the September 1, 1985 issue of the San Antonio Express-News, I was given a half page of the Sunday paper to question the benefits of growth in San Antonio. Speaking of the tall cranes and the new buildings being built, I said:

"Tall buildings may be no more than a phallic symbol for the city. Mine is bigger than yours."

We will no doubt see less emphasis on tall buildings in the United States in the next few years. Many people are uncomfortable working in then now, and that uneasiness will not go away easily. On the island of Kauai, Hawaii, they passed a law years ago that no new building could rise higher than the Palm trees, for aesthetic reasons. It would not surprise me that most new buildings would be lower, or no taller than, the existing buildings in any city. No laws need be passed. Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch thinks they should rebuild the Twin Towers exactly as they were. We'll have to wait to see which of us is right.

How Much Training Does it Take to Fly an Airliner from A to B?

Some TV "experts" told us how difficult it was to fly a big jet, what with the complexity of the autopilot and all that navigation equipment, and so on.

I have never flown anything larger than a single-engine airplane - from takeoff to touchdown. I do not have an instrument rating. After studying the Microsoft Flight Simulator manual for about half an hour, I "flew" a Boeing 777-300 from Logan airport in Boston to New York City. I used navigational frequencies for New York's JFK that were in the Flight Sim handbook, or were easily available on the Internet. The aircraft also has a GPS display that shows where you are and what is up ahead - and into which you can program a destination.

Failing all that, you could draw a line on a map from Boston to New York and fly by the compass direction alone in most cases. New York is a pretty big target to find. You do not have to have pinpoint accuracy. You can buy an aviation "Sectional Chart" of an area that is a roadmap from on high. They are about $8.00 a piece. You can see the roads, the cities, the water towers, the TV towers, and so on. I flew in Laos. We did not have VOR stations to guide us through the sky. We flew by the compass, or following landmarks, or by homing in on a small beacon transmitter that might have been stuck into the ground in a piece of bamboo. Before the advent of modern navigational aids, those who flew between Boston and NYC with just a compass had no trouble finding NYC on a bright and clear day.

In my flight kit, I also had a color printout of the Manhattan skyline in the area of the Twin Towers, clearly showing the radio/or TV tower on one tower (from Microsoft Encarta). I also had a detailed street map of lower Manhattan, which I printed from a CD- ROM map program.

The autopilot takes about five minutes to understand. You can maintain a Heading, an Altitude, an Airspeed, and keep your wings level, by twisting a few knobs and punching a few buttons. All of this is clearly described in the flight manual for the Flight Sim. The manual covers tracking VORs, ADF beacons, GPS tracking, transponders, autopilot, cruising airspeeds - everything you need to know to get the aircraft from A to B once it is in the air. Rudder pedal attachments are available for flight sims, so you can learn the relationship of the rudder and ailerons (moveable elements on the wings -controlled by the yoke or stick) while making banking turns.

So, I "took off" from Boston's Logan, turned SW and set up my gauges to take me to NYC. In due course, I could see NYC ahead. I banked to the tip of Manhattan, then banked left with the Statue of Liberty in sight (how ironic), and lined up on the Twin Towers. It was an eerie feeling, to say the least.

The Other Targets

A major TV reporter said that his sources told him that the plane that hit the Pentagon had been intended for the White House. He commented that the White House is hard to see from the air and the terrorists may have instead diverted to the Pentagon. Remember that a light aircraft crashed into the White House some years back. I "flew" my Flight Sim over Washington many times in the past few days - in both small and large aircraft.

For many reasons, some of which I will not discuss in order to avoid giving people ideas, I do not subscribe to the theory that "The White House is not easy to find from the air." It would take a pretty skilled pilot to ram the White House with a big jet airliner. As I have said, it is relatively easy to take off (without a strong crosswind) any aircraft. Flying at altitude is not that difficult. But landing is another story. Because the White House is such a relatively small target and is not very high, hitting it with a big jet would be the equivalent of landing on a precise spot on a runway, which is probably not easy to do without considerable training in large aircraft.

The Washington Monument is perhaps the easiest to find. Aided by my CD-ROM map of Washington, I was able to fly past the Washington Monument and fly nearly due North to find the White House, time after time. The second question is: Why would terrorists "waste" a hijacked plane on the White House when everybody knew, or should have known, that the President of the United States was not there? And all the news media has told the world that there is an underground bunker at the White House where top officials can scatter to in times of threat. The Capitol, or CIA headquarters would have been much more logical targets.

Coming from the Potomac river, the U.S. Capitol is very easy to find, if it were a target - and the approach is wide open for a low-flying aircraft. As is the CIA complex. As was the Pentagon. Remember that it appears that the jet that hit the Pentagon may have skipped on the ground before hitting the building. That reinforces my point that an unskilled pilot might have trouble hitting a low building. Short buildings, particularly those surrounded by trees or taller buildings (e.g., White House) are a harder target. For a skyscraper, a miss of 10 to 20 floors from the intended point of impact would be known only to the terrorist.

One plane was hijacked from Dulles Airport outside D.C., and it is certainly not hard to find the CIA complex from there. And it puzzles me why the terrorists flew into a recently renovated section of the Pentagon which had been beefed up for resistance to explosions. Why did they not target the area where either the Joint Chiefs or the Secretary of Defense worked? Maybe the Pentagon was not a primary target. There are many maps and guides on the Internet that show you the layout of the Pentagon and who works in which general areas, including the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense. Maybe during the renovations, some of these people have been moved around. I don't know, but surely anyone who cared to know could have found out.

Interestingly, the Pentagon is in the middle of a renovation that adds steel beams, blast- resistant glass, Kevlar sheets in the outer walls, and so on. All of this is to protect against blasts. The hijacked plane hit a refurbished area or there would have no doubt been greater loss of life. The area above and around the Pentagon is "restricted airspace" in which no commercial aircraft are allowed to fly. I suspect that the new rules of engagement in that "restricted airspace" will be pretty draconian. During the crisis, the president had issued orders to first challenge apparently hijacked aircraft to divert and/or land. If not, shoot them down. Think of how many lives may have been saved by the brave passengers on the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. Hijackers used to be mostly trying to make a statement or they wanted to fly to Cuba or wherever. The rules changed in one day as to how we view hijackings.

The airspace above the CIA and White House is also restricted airspace. So, don't rent a Cessna and try flying over those areas to take pictures. I did fly over CIA HQ once in a small aircraft. In those days, the CIA called its HQ buildings at Langley "The Bureau of Public Roads." As I recall, the charts did not show the airspace as restricted. Why would it be restricted airspace over a place that housed trucks and tractors and road workers? Of course, newspaper reporter would call the Russian Embassy and ask how many people worked for the CIA. The Russians would answer, "You mean at Langley, or all over the District, or in the entire world?" And they would give estimates. I swear to you. This was a long time ago.

Eventually, our investigators will probably find the entire "target list" of the terrorists for September 11th, 2001 (and maybe future targets). It will be most interesting. I will be surprised if CIA at Langley or the Capitol were not on that list or on future target lists.

General Aviation - Another Sleeper

"General Aviation" is the term applied generally to all aircraft not owned by the major airline companies. It includes business jets, charter aircraft, privately-owned pleasure aircraft, rental aircraft, aircraft at flight schools, and so on. This is a highly fragmented segment of our aviation system. There are thousands of small airports, even planes parked in back yards in rural areas, and so on. These aircraft are capable of delivering a devastating conventional bomb payload (for a suicide pilot), hauling chemical or biological weapons, and in truth, a small nuclear device.

As I tossed and turned trying to get to sleep last night, I thought of many bad scenarios involving small planes at smaller airports with virtually no security. At one time, I was a partner in a company that ran a Fixed Base Operation (General Aviation center at an airport) and a flight school. At most small airports there is virtually no security. Drug dealers have been known to simply steal airplanes that were parked in the open at various airports, for example.

You can walk up to a flight school and ask for a demo ride or a sightseeing ride and in most cases not even show an ID. Pretty easy pickings for a terrorist to hijack an airplane. If you take lessons, as many of the recent terrorists did, after only a few hours of instruction, you are allowed to make a "solo cross country flight," to show that you know how to get from city A to city B, or airport A to airport B. That conjures up some very disturbing scenarios. And on into the night the images flooded my brain.

The FAA, FBI, and others who will be attempting to strengthen our aviation security must not overlook a thorough analysis of the General Aviation industry - the threats and the vulnerabilities. Due to the diversity of locations and ownerships of General Aviation aircraft, it will be a daunting task. But, it seems to me, we have no choice but to do so.

One point of all of this aircraft discussion is that the government can start checking every flight school in the U.S. for "suspicious" students. I submit that a 12-year old child with a bunch of hours on a good jet flight simulator on a personal computer could pull off another World Trade Center disaster. This leaves as the front line; airport security, cockpit security, and armed crew or marshals on board - and finding and killing all the terrorists we can get our hands on - and keeping close track of the ones we cannot kill. Count on many changes. Making the government responsible for airport and aircraft security are things we should welcome. Higher paid, better and uniformly trained, armed, with arrest authority, and so on.

One idea has been recurring to me over and over. Now the whole country is focusing on how to strengthen airport and cockpit security and a whole host of issues about preventing terrorists from using commercial (or private aircraft with large bombs on board) to hit tall buildings or national monuments like the White House and the Capitol. The terrorists are no doubt busy working on other means of delivering their payload of terror and will be pleased if we spend most of our time and resources working on airport and aircraft security problems.

To Get a Mule's Attention, Hit Him With a 2 X 4

One of the reasons that I am "throwing in the towel" for now is that this country has known about the terrorist threats for decades and has been so slow to move on physical security and better intelligence gathering. I am tired of "pissing into the wind" with my commentary and my letters to key legislators and to the White House- many of which were answered with personal notes.

Many years ago, an Undersecretary of State, whom I greatly admired, called me to the seventh floor of the State Department and asked me to turn in my cloak and dagger and become part of his security team at State Department. I declined and told him that I just could not work with those people. In essence, I told him that they had their heads up their asses. He said that he completely understood and we parted that day still friends. I had some friends then in State Department Security, and they were good people. My beef was with the coddled and naive middle management in State who would not know a terrorist if he was their gardener. Over the years, I had more than one U.S. Ambassador ask me to do tasks for them - because they had no confidence in their own people.

In 1983, terrorists truck-bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. I had been in the beautiful city of Beirut in happier times. It was called by many "The San Francisco of the Middle East." Secretary of Defense Weinberger and others said that the attack was "unprecedented and could not have been reasonably foreseen." I wrote a letter-to-the- editor to The Dallas Morning News. In part, I said:

"Even the cowboys had enough sense to 'circle the wagons' against potential Indian attacks.... For decades we have depended upon the flying of the Stars and Stripes, the respect for the United States worldwide, and the aura of power, to protect our overseas installations. Times have changed. Unloaded guns and a smile won't hack it anymore. So we had better wise up and shore up our defenses or face the inevitable consequences."

That was written on November 12, 1983!

We have made some progress, yet our embassies in many places are still vulnerable to car bombs. There are some dedicated and smart people working in security at State. But, without a national will and clear mandates - and money - security people can do only so much.

Our borders are like a sieve, where terrorists can come and go with near impunity. Someone on TV finally had the courage to suggest that the Canadians could help by doing a better job of screening people passing through border check points. As I recall, several Soviet KGB "illegals" came to the U.S. via Canada. We all know how porous our border with Mexico is. The idea that NAFTA should eventually mean a completely open border for both Canada and Mexico is complete insanity.

We have put barriers in the streets in Washington, virtually closed down the Capitol building to the once free flow of visitors, and on and on. In other words, we have had a mind set that "we cannot stop terrorists, so we will try to minimize the damage." You already see a new spirit in Washington, with more emphasis on physical security, but perhaps more importantly, an emphasis on identifying terrorists worldwide and doing something about them - one way or the other - before they have a chance to attack. Our allies will join in, one can only pray. There were people from about 50 countries killed or missing in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.. Britain does not want to see a British Airways jet slam into Buckingham Place or France see an Air France jet take out the Eiffel Tower, or Italy see an Al Italia plane dive into the Vatican. It took one hell of an event to get the world's attention.

I have become so tired of the news coverage of the event that I have quit watching most news shows. But maybe it is a good idea to keep hammering on the coverage, showing the devastation over and over, and talking about the human and economic consequences. Maybe then some of those whose biggest worry was how to get a Lexus or that the government might tap their phone, will get a little perspective on the world situation.

A National ID Card

A national ID card is being talked about. Fine, do it, with photograph, fingerprints and a smart chip with blood type, DNA, etc. The truth is that there are millions of people in this country whose true identity we do not know. And many who are here legally on visas are not who we think they are. And many whose visas have expired are traveling around from city to city with impunity. It is time to stop handing out Visas like they were tickets to Disney World. It would take a long time, but eventually we might actually know who is wandering around in this country. And think of all the wanted fugitives we would turn up. And people who faked their death to collect insurance. Men who deserted their families. What a nice bonus.

When I think about "picture IDs," that are sometimes required to do certain things, like cash a check (by showing your driver's license), or buy a beer, I think about how easy it is to get a phony driver's license, or a birth certificate - and thus a passport. In Texas, to qualify for a concealed weapon permit, you have to be fingerprinted, have your criminal record checked by the state and the FBI, submit a recent photo and expect some investigation of your past beyond the criminal record checks- in addition to the classroom work and the firing test. Privileges bring with them responsibilities.

Sometimes those responsibilities mean intrusions into your life and privacy in ways you are not accustomed to. To make my point about the near uselessness of a driver's license as a valid ID, when I am asked for my license while cashing a check, I show them my Concealed Weapon Permit and say "You would be smarter to ask for this. It is a lot harder to get." Of course, they insist on writing down the license number, because that is the only thing the "system" understands. Garbage in, garbage out - is the computer term.

We Can't Give In to Terrorists by Making the U.S. a Police State

I simply get sick to my stomach when I see the comments of the liberals who will not give up the mantra that we should not change anything in our free society or the terrorists will have won. If we don't make a lot of changes, a substantial number of us will be dead - a very substantial number. The rules of engagement changed on the morning of September 11, 2001.

For example, Senator Patrick Leahy is a poster child for the liberals who are already wringing their hands about the potential for increased security. He said:

"We have to be careful that in our horror and revulsion over this horrendous and terrible act that we do not give away the freedoms that make us different from terrorists."

Just what the hell is that supposed to mean? What makes us different from terrorists in our "free society" is that they can kill and maim us at will because we have made our internal security so weak.

Another quote from Senator Leahy:

"Maybe we want to adopt new abilities to go into people's computers. Maybe that will make us feel safer. Maybe. And maybe what the terrorists have done is made us a little less safe. Maybe they have increased Big Brother in this country."

Once again, what the hell is that supposed to mean? This guy is really starting to bug me. And he is Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Pray for a Republican majority in the Senate next election. Otherwise, we will continue to get the old-line liberal fuzzy logic and double-speak that got us into this mess in the first place.

Many say that hunkering down is giving in to the terrorists - that is just what they want. Bullshit! What they want is to kill as many people as they can, destroy our economic might, and undermine our heart and soul as a nation. Putting armed guards on airplanes, having fighter jets accompany Air Force One, letting the FBI and NSA scan e-mail and phone calls and the radio spectrum, tightening border checks, better checking of visa applicants, and on and on - is not "giving in to terrorists." That is typical liberal hogwash. All these things will be required for this country to survive. It is that simple. Stop the whining about giving in to terrorists. That is what we have done for decades. You see the results.

We could not find a long-time spy within CIA (Ames). We could not find a long-time spy in the FBI (Hanssen). We have not been able to win the war on drugs. Of course, the reason we have not won the war on drugs is because Americans have an insatiable appetite for drugs. There is no appetite for terrorism. With the way our Federal law enforcement and intelligence is lacking a clear mandate as to what they should be doing, and with very little coordination among agencies, how in the world were we supposed to find terrorists in our country? Don't put all the blame on the fine men and women of CIA, FBI, NSA and others who do the work. Go way back to lack of presidential guidance, lack of guidance at the top in the agencies, lack of congressional guidance and oversight, and lack of funding. In my January 26, 2001 Outback, I had an article entitled "Bush Administration Needs to Review the Mission of Federal Law Enforcement." I suggest you read it.

The Administration and Attorney General Ashcroft are suggesting some changes in how we can detain people here on visas if they are suspects, an ability to apply wiretap and bugging laws against suspected terrorists, and an ability to get electronic-surveillance warrants tied to a person, not just a location or a phone number. And the AG wants Congress to enact legislation that would apply the RICO laws to suspected terrorists. RICO is a body of law relating to "conspiracies to commit crimes." You don't have to show a destroyed building, for instance, to make an arrest and get a conviction. It would be sufficient to prove that two or more people "conspired" to commit an illegal act. That is how we got most of the Mafia bosses in jail, so all the AG wants is the same authority over suspected terrorists.

Calm down. Your civil rights and privacy were never invaded (you would have to admit, I'm sure) by the FBI while bugging and wiretapping the Mafia (with a court order) or making conspiracy (RICO) cases against them. You never knew what was going on until you saw the arrests on TV. And none of your phone conversations are on file at the FBI, unless your name is Gotti.

While we are at it, let's add one more class of people against whom we can use all these new anti-terrorist legal tools. Those are the people who write viruses, worms, Trojan horses, et al., that actually get into the Internet or into our networks or computers. Add those who conduct "denial of service" attacks on Internet Providers or Web pages and those who use hacking to either disrupt business or government or steal money or classified material via hacking activities. Collectively, these "computer terrorists" are costing the world billions of dollars and disrupting business, government, and commerce. You tell me one good reason why they should not come under the same criminals statutes as being readied for potential terrorists. We have put up with the idea that hackers are just having fun and that viruses are mostly a nuisance for too long. These idiots are terrorists by any definition. You want to argue the point? The Senate bill, known as the "Combating Terrorism Act," has some language in it that would include Internet abuses as noted above under the same legal umbrella as terrorists. We will have to wait to see how the House and Senate work out the compromise language.

Many are saying that we should not overreact and pass laws and regulations that deprive us of our freedoms as a "knee jerk" reaction to the attacks. Well, we have done that in the past. When JFK was shot, draconian gun laws were passed, in comparison to what had been on the books. Later, some of the provisions that either just did not work or were more trouble than they were worth, were rescinded. So, it seems to me that it is better to reach too far than not reach far enough, as we have done for the 20 or more years that we have known of the threat of international terrorism. Some measure may be temporary. Some might later be stricken by a vote of the Congress. But, please stop the whining about the possible violation of our civil rights and our privacy. The near-ultimate violations of your rights and privacy already visited us on September 11th. And it could get worse - a lot worse.

As I noted in an early Outback column, innocent people have nothing to fear from authorized (usually by a judge or maybe by the Atty. General in an emergency, subject to judicial review) uses of electronic intercept of communications. There are not enough men and women in the FBI, CIA, NSA, et al, and not enough computers to sift through your e-mail and my cell-phone calls - unless we venture into some off-limits areas.

Remember the seven dirty words you could not say on TV? There will be a new list of words you should probably avoid in your Internet and e-mail communications, such as bomb, hijack, aircraft diversion, launder money, down with Satan, and so on. That will be one way to avoid ending up on a government hard drive somewhere. Much of the terrorist traffic is no doubt encrypted. So, there is merit when the government says it needs a "back door" into encryption systems. Freedom is not absolute. That is anarchy. The rules of engagement changed on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Do not misunderstand. I am not in favor of giving law enforcement and intelligence agencies a blank check inside our country. I have seen both enforcement and intelligence abuses - from the inside. In fact, at the time of the terrorist attacks, I was working on an article about what rights citizens have when stopped by police for a traffic violation. Police often go on fishing expeditions with questions and requests for you to waive your rights and let them search your vehicle, and so on. But the measures being asked for by the Federal government will not greatly affect you and I in our daily lives.

There will be mistakes, like an e-mail whose subject says "I really bombed that interview yesterday," that might get intercepted. The FBI are now, and probably will be, constrained not to read the entire contents of the e-mail. They can call me anytime and ask for the full text of any e-mail they think has suspicious content. No harm, no foul. I'll choose my words better next time. This column probably will make NSA or FBI computer disks because of the many "hot button" words used. But I'm not worried. I'm clean. And so should you not be worried if you are a law-abiding citizen.

As long as we have vigilant oversight of the government's law enforcement and intelligence efforts by the Congress and the free press, including those on the Internet, keep probing - we will be okay. We will not have to turn the U.S. into a "police state" to accomplish the ends - as the liberals have, would, and will have you believe. On the other hand, a liberal media and liberal slant in our educational institutions has helped greatly in fashioning a Tiger whose claws have been clipped. We can still growl and roar like hell, but when a "cat fight" starts inside our borders, we can't slash at a jugular with a sharpened claw. It is time to let the Tiger's claws grow out.

Years ago, I started a novel about terrorists who smuggled into the United States several small Atomic Bombs and planted them in strategic positions in the country - to be detonated remotely at their pleasures. I never finished the book, as it perhaps was too much of a "how to be a nuclear terrorist" manual. Today, we hear many highly-placed and well- informed sources tell us that the next attack could be biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. That is not idle chatter to get more money for our intelligence efforts - or as an excuse to invade your privacy.

The Media Strikes Again

I have recorded a lot of the media coverage and fast-forwarded through much of it. The same old game. First, it was "800 dead at Pentagon." They jumped on one poor guy's estimate about the "worst-case." Now, the actual figure is probably less than 200 - still horrible enough. Then there were reports of 10 people detained with knives and box cutters at NY airports. Maybe there weren't any knives and box cutters with those folks at all. Maybe the media jumped the gun. Mayor Giuliani and the assistant in charge of the FBI in NYC admonished the news media about printing stories prematurely. They told the media to wait until facts were verified to them by law enforcement spokespersons before they put out stories, such as how many dead, and on and on. Good for you Rudy. Finally someone sat the children down and gave them a lecture about responsibility.

The word from the Administration is that the war on terrorism will be a "secret war." Already, the media is starting to bitch about the First Amendment and the public's right to know. There are some things the public has no right to know, or need to know - until it is over. We cannot conduct a "covert war" on the front pages of newspapers or on the evening news.

You will see reporters asking time after time about new methods and procedures to combat terrorism or what kind of operations are planned. They will get a lot of stony stares and a lot of "I can't comment on that." Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, has already said that talking about future plans and options will only put lives and operations in jeopardy. Everybody in government should fall in line with Rumsfeld. "I can't comment" should be the answer of the day. Until reporters stop asking stupid questions like, "Are we going to bomb Iraq to punish them?" "Where are we sending the Delta Force?" And so on.

I was involved in a "secret war" once - in Laos. The totality and the day-to-day operations were some of the best-kept secrets from the media in memory. The Congress had approved the "war in Laos," and the president had approved. We got visits from important people in the government who needed to know what was going on. But the press was nearly completely frozen out. I cannot go into the details of how "we" did that. Outsmarting the jerkoffs who wanted to come to Laos and publish our "game plan" in every paper in the world was one of the few joys of our service there. Well, stand by media, you are about to get frozen out again, big time. With very good reason.

This country has a history of "giving away the store" by open reporting on military, intelligence, and investigative matters. Let's all take a deep breath and depend upon the Congress to provide very close oversight of the Administration's plans, the Pentagon's plans, and so on. In the meantime, the cable news shows can go back to 14-hour a day coverage of "What happened to Chandra Levy?" Yes, there will be highly-resourceful reporters who penetrate the veil of secrecy. But there have been many times in our history when reporters did not report what they knew - for the good of the country. I would hope there are a few of those types still working in the media. My hopes, though, are fairly slim.

The Disinformation Conspiracy

I am not one of those who worries about black, unmarked, helicopters spying on me or taking pictures of me in my back yard. However, during the Cold War both the KGB and CIA (and others) were good at "disinformation," the spreading of untruths so cleverly and covertly that they were accepted as truths. I was involved in some of them.

What has nagged me for years has been the constant drumbeat in this country against aggressive law-enforcement and intelligence agencies for fear our civil liberties or our privacy will be violated. Make no mistake, they have been on many occasions. But the horrendous abuses of power at Ruby Ridge and Waco were mostly colossal blunders in judgement and horrific abuses of government power. Since then, a lot of measures have been put in place to prevent Ruby Ridge and Waco from happening again. We have an orderly system of justice to review cases of "unreasonable search and seizure," and so on.

Yet the drumbeat has continued for decades, limiting what the government can do. Some of this has all the earmarks of a "disinformation campaign." In large part, the media has been duped into being champions of all the fringe civil rights and privacy groups and repeating their mantras "Stay out of our lives. Don't violate our privacy." I got so damn mad at a snot-nosed geek in San Francisco on TechTV who several times portrayed the FBI Carnivore internet- and e-mail monitoring program as such a horrible abuse of our government, that had I been in the room I would have attacked him. For that and other such juvenile and uninformed bits of hysteria, I have quit watching the channel. This kid has no idea what it is like to try and track the Mafia or terrorists. I wrote about Carnivore in an earlier issue of the Outback and suggested that you and I have nothing to fear from it, because we are not hatching criminal plots and the FBI does not have the manpower to collect and read all the e-mail on even one major ISP.

Lately, it has been the face-recognition software that has been the target of the "privacy invasion" folks. Well, true-blue American, if you are at a Cowboy game (the first game was cancelled because of the terrorist attack) and the state police or the FBI are scanning the audience with face-recognition cameras and software, my advise is to smile and wave. Because the guy next to you may not be as fat as you think. That may be explosives under his puffy shirt. This is not a "movie-of-the-week" anymore.

Deep down I worry that there is a network of people who add considerable fuel to the "anti-privacy and anti-civil rights discussion" that may not even be Americans. We practiced "disinformation" for years to destabilize governments we did not favor, as did the Soviets. They may have been better at it then we were. Hillary Clinton has in the past spoken of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Sweetheart, the truth is closer to "There is a vast left-wing conspiracy." Because if anybody can succeed in keeping our government weak for fear of offending some group, or violating a right, or invading someone's privacy, then that government is paralyzed to act. It is then you can train pilots in the U.S., hijack airlines, and kill thousands of people.

Americans Will Have to Make Sacrifices

The American people are being told that they must make sacrifices to fight terrorism. To many Americans who grew up in the "me" generation, a "sacrifice" would be when the bakery is out of blueberry bagels - or gas prices rise 10 cents a gallon. We have a soft society that has grown fat (literally and figuratively) and complacent. Most have never missed two meals in a row, never lost a loved one to violence, never laid in a foreign jungle, or marched through a desert, sent their husbands and brothers off to fight and die in some remote place.

One cannot but help recall the sacrifices in WW II. One source I found indicates that the United States lost 292,131 service personnel in World War II and had nearly 672,000 wounded. Think also of the sacrifice of the wives, brothers, sisters, and parents of all those killed. And of the greater number of families who were disrupted by military separations of several years duration. Car plants made tanks - not cars - gas was rationed, auto tires were nearly impossible to get, there was a shortage of basic metals to make consumer products. There were many other shortages at home.

We see the results of a few generations who were raised with the idea that freedom is a gift, not something you have to continue to fight for, who were raised with every creature comfort. Some think it is a high calling to chain themselves to a tree or to protest every effort to help tighten security with a cry of "invasion of privacy," and "violations of civil liberties." Hire a lawyer. Sue the government.

I served in the Marines, as a federal agent, and as an intelligence agent - devoting much of my adult life to helping fight Communism and organized crime. Many times, I feel like I wasted my time. Finally, the tragic events of September 11th have awakened people to the fact that we have to constantly fight for our freedoms. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices. Sometimes we have to make compromises.

Just Tired

It is not just the terrorist debacle that is driving me temporarily back into my former bucolic life in the country. The country is on the right track. It is mobilized in spirit and action. I will simply watch from the sidelines for a while and see how things progress.

But, I am tired. I am tired of railing about the pharmaceutical companies. I am tired of railing against the environmentalist who predict the end of the Earth every time a cow farts. I am tired of railing against people who think a Sucker Fish is more important than people and growing crops. I am tired of railing against government waste and fraud. I am tired of railing against people who burn down buildings because scientists are trying to cure disease by experimentation on mice and rats. I am tired of railing against the elite media in this country who think they are the only ones who know anything.

I am tired of railing against Hollywood and entertainers who fill our screens with filth and violence and are forever checking into treatment facilities or coming out about their own mental illnesses (all the while telling us on TV shows how to live our lives - and how the government should act to please their agenda). I am tired of entertainers, like Woody Allen, Barbra Streisand, Martin Sheen, and others, being given headlines and column inches and hours of air time to express their views on how to solve the world's problems.

I am sick of politicians who say they are working in a bipartisan way "for the good of the American people," and then vote idiotically strictly along party lines. Open debate and differences of opinion are one thing. Being pigheaded and stupid is something else.

It takes an enormous amount of reading, downloading files, and printing out articles to be as accurate as I think I am in most articles with factual material. The idea to write on a given subject comes easily. The research, writing, checking all the HTML errors, making endless corrections (and still not even getting all the spelling correct) is a voracious time consumer. I am drowning in a sea of paper, printouts, and downloaded Web pages and files. It is simply overwhelming, for now. And with my broad background and all the research, I begin to "know too much" about the state of our culture, the state of business, the state of politics, how the State Department functions, the shortcomings in INS and our visa laws, the law enforcement and intelligence agencies methods and shortfalls, and so on. Too much knowledge of what is really going on in this country and the world is frankly very depressing and makes one cynical. There is a lot to be said for not watching the news, not reading a newspaper, and being entirely self-absorbed in seeking out your own pleasures for yourself and your family. As the saying goes, at least you have a chance to be "fat, dumb, and happy." Except for the "fat" part. I aspire more to the "dumb and happy" part for how, as I continue to work on losing weight.

I have been at "this" in one way or another since I enlisted in the U.S. Marines in 1951. I think I'll take a little rest.

Suggested Reading From Past Columns

(Right-click on an underlined link and select: "Open in New Window" to leave this window in place)

Terrorism

"The World Trade Center & Pentagon Attacks!" Update on Sept. 11 to Outback for September 8, 2001

Global warming and environmental debate:

"Rush to Glacier National Park Before All the Glaciers are Gone" September 8, 2001
"Chipping Away at the Global Warming and Environmental Alarmists," September 1, 2001
"John Stossel And ABC's 'Tampering With Nature,'" June 29, 2001
"The Kyoto Protocol & Global Warming - A Monumental Scam?" June 16, 2001
"Public Interest Groups With Sometimes Very Little Public Interest," May 12, 2001
"Environmentalism For Dummies - Part II," April 21, 2001
"Environmentalism For Dummies," April 7, 2001
"Environmental and Animal-Rights Terrorists," March 24, 2001

Politics:

"My Friend Senator Jesse Helms," September 8, 2001
"Forget Liar & Adulterer - Cong. Gary Condit is Simply Stupid," September 1, 2001
"Government Waste and Fraud," August 18, 2001
"President Bush's Excellent Adventure," June 29, 2001
"The Bush Budget - Fighting Over 4% Growth Versus 8% Growth Is Nonsense," April 21, 2001
"The Chinese Demand for an Apology Regarding the Aircraft Accident is Preposterous," April 7, 2001
"Campaign Finance Reform - A Senatorial Catharsis - And National Snow Job," March 31, 2001
"Florida Secretary Of State Literally Begged Networks Not To Call Election Early," March 24, 2001
"Charlton Heston Speech at Harvard," March 10, 2001 (about free speech, PC, et al.)
"The Ever-Expanding First Amendment," January 26, 2001
"Bush Administration Needs To Review The Mission Of Federal Law Enforcement," January 26, 2001
"New York, What Were You Thinking?" November 13, 2000 (Re: Hillary Clinton)
"Lessons Learned In Election 2000?" November 13, 2000
"How the Federal Government Corrupts the Constitution to Intrude Into Your Life," October 30, 2000
"Let's All Make Fun of the Dumb Guy From Texas," December 15, 2000 (Pres. Bush)

Prescription drugs - advertised on TV - abuses in the pharmaceutical industry - supplements:

"Prescription Drug Plans," September 8, 2001
"Baycol Cholesterol Drug Withdrawn From the Market," August 18, 2001
"Prozac Gets New Life!" July 28,2001
"The New Cholesterol Guidelines - Everybody Gets A Pill," July 7, 2001
"Bitter Pills To Swallow," June 2, 2001
"The Drug Companies Continue Their Assault On Your Pocketbook," May 19, 2001
"FDA Questions Practice of TV Ads for Prescription Drugs," March 31, 2001
"Prescription for Disaster," September 11, 2000

Health - General:

"Trans Fatty Acids - The Hidden Fat," August 4, 2001
"Your Body Clock," August 4, 2001
"My Medical Writing Credentials - Such As They Are," July 7, 2001
"The 'Eggs Are Bad For You' Alarmists Strike Again," May 12, 2001
"Herbal Remedies, Supplements, And Alternative Therapies," September 18, 2000

Computers and Technology:

"LCD Flat Panel Displays & Dual Monitor Video Boards," August 18, 2001
"DishNetwork's Personal Video Recorder Dish Pro 501," July 28, 2001
"Internet Via Satellite," June 16, 2001
"The Internet in China," April 21, 2001
"Mark Cuban is the Posterboy for Dotcom Mania," April 21, 2001

Interesting Books to Read:

"Your Body Clock," August 4, 2001
"Body of Secrets," by James Bamford, July 28, 2001 (About NSA)

A case history of horrendous abuse by Federal law enforcement:

"FBI Sniper At Ruby Ridge My Be Tried For Manslaughter," June 9, 2001.

Crime, guns, gun-control:

"Eyewitness Testimony is Suspect," August 18, 2001
"The AMA Is Losing Its Way," June 29 2001
"Doctors Have Written the Wrong Prescription for Guns," April 14, 2001
"The FBI and the Hanssen Case," March 10, 2001
"FBI Director Freeh Stays On," January 26, 2001 (Some clues to recent FBI failures)
"Aircraft Cockpit Security," December 29, 2000

Late Night TV Cruel Humor, et al.:

(I quit watching late night in disgust, so there are no new articles on the subject.)

"David Letterman Grovels For The Colombians," May 19, 2001
"Are Leno And Letterman Using The Same CD-ROM For Constructing Jokes?" May 12, 2001
"Late Night Comedians Struggle To Lampoon Bush," May 5, 2001
"Late-Night TV Sick Humor," August 28, 2000
"Late-Night TV Political Comedy," August 14, 2000

Hollywood, Entertainers, Celebrities:

"Celebrities Rush to Move Overseas in Protest of Bush Victory," January 5, 2001
"The Mother of all Hollywood Activists," December 22, 2000 (Jane Fonda)
"Elton John, Political Pundit - Druggie - Drunk - Compulsive Spender," Dec. 15, 2000

Telemarketing:

"Telemarketers, Caller-ID, et al.," August 4, 2001
"Rid Yourself of Telemarketers," October 23, 2000

Miscellaneous:

"The Decline in the American Work Ethic," May 12, 2001
"Made in USA," January 5, 20001
"How Many Gigabytes in Your Brain?," December 15, 2000

COPYRIGHT 2001 Richard C. Rhodes

You are welcome to quote sections from this page - or the whole page, as long as the source URL is included. Of course, I would be flattered if anyone linked to this page. It is very hard to be the writer, editor, fact checker, copy editor, and publisher of anything. So, I welcome corrections of fact, notes of misspelled words, and so on.

Media List

Archive of Back Issues

Back Issues

Back to Current Column

Back to Richard's Home Page

Richard C. Rhodes