Fear, Loathing, and the Presence of Absence
Today’s Miserable Failure Alert, (Via Carrie) highlights this un-funny news item from Frank Gaffney, Jr.:
Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell revealed to the El Paso Times that the United States had caught Iraqi terrorists trying to get into the country across its still-unfenced southern border. According to a report subsequently published in WorldNetDaily, Adm. McConnell’s office revealed that, “During fiscal 2006, there were 14 Iraqi nationals caught trying to enter the U.S. illegally, while so far in 2007, that number is 16.” The online publication quoted the DNI as saying, “The goal is for terrorists to gain admittance to the United States, and then produce ‘mass casualties.’ ”
… Adm. McConnell’s admission raises the obvious question: If we caught more than a dozen Iraqi terrorists slipping into the U.S. during each of the last two years, how many were not intercepted? Typically, the ratio is something like for every one nabbed, 10 get through.
Indeed, WorldNetDaily reports that “the U.S. Customs and Border Protection intercepted 60 Iraqis crossing the nation’s southwestern border in 2006 who were seeking asylum in the U.S., while that number so far in 2007 is 178.” What is interesting is that the El Paso Times was told by a U.S. intelligence analyst, “There’s been evidence that human smugglers, or coyotes, are telling Iraqis to ask for amnesty if they are caught.” How many desiring to do us harm are among those seeking amnesty (caught and uncaught) — and whose wish might be realized if extraordinarily ill-advised legislation like H.R. 2265 recently introduced in Congress is adopted? (For a troubling analysis of this bill, see http://www.vigilantfreedom.org/910blog/2007/08/06/faq-on-hr-2265/).
This is interesting for several reasons:
1. We have repeatedly been assured terrorists are not trying to come across our southern border.
2. As James Taranto noted yesterday, flagging suspicious persons for further scrutiny as they enter the US (which uninformed persons might have been tempted, if not for the diligent efforts of the WaPo, to view as a “good thing”) raises “concerns about privacy and the list’s effectiveness“:
But only a small fraction of those questioned were arrested or denied entry into the United States, raising concerns among critics about privacy and the list’s effectiveness. . . .Slightly more than half of the 20,000 encounters last year were logged by Customs and Border Protection officers, who turned back or handed over to authorities 550 people, most of them foreigners, Customs officials said. . . .
David Sobel, senior counsel with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy organization, said the numbers “suggest a staggeringly high rate of false positives with respect to the identification of supposed terrorists.” He added that “this really confirms the long-standing fear that this list is inaccurate and ultimately ineffective as an anti-terrorism tool.”
So it’s ineffective because it only stopped 550 people? Well, let’s do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, shall we?
The attacks of Sept. 11 were perpetrated by 19 men. According to a September 2006 CNN estimate, the attacks killed 2,973 people. That amounts to just over 156 victims per terrorist. If 550 terrorists were able to pull off something proportionate, they would kill roughly 86,061 people.
Of course it’s possible that not all of the 550 were actual terrorists, but that’s not what critics like David Sobel are worried about today. They’re concerned that too few people are being arrested or denied entry as possible terrorists. If the ratio went up, though, is there any doubt that the critics would be complaining that the government is casting too wide a net and ensnaring the innocent?
And those, as the late, great Darth Rummy would have reminded us, are just the known knowns:
The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We don’t know.
But then, as we are so often reminded, how can the world’s richest superpower ever hope to win the war on terror? And if we do manage to free ourselves from fear, will that be a “good” thing, or a “bad” thing? Who will be hardest hit?
Stay tuned folks, and whatever you do, don’t cancel your subscription to the NY Times. The Editorial Staff is just atwitter with anticipation, waiting for that glorious day when the Times will tell us all how to cope life in a brave new world where we struggle daily to come to grips with post-traumatic stress, caused by the Grim Presence of the Absence of Fear.
Topics: GWOT, Iraq, illegals, impending doom!
Posted by Cassandra at 11:21 am on Tuesday, August 28, 2007
6 Responses to “Fear, Loathing, and the Presence of Absence”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:30 am
With her usual cold calculation, Hillary has already taken the possibility into consideration. Her conclusion is a terrorist attack will help the Republicans unless the Democratic party gets busy planting the idea it would have done better to secure the borders. Yeah, right. With her party so beholden on the service industry unions for money and votes, not to mention the various grievance groups and ethnic lobbies, what pathetic work that has been done by the Bush administration would seem like a police state in comparison.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:59 am
What’s more interesting to contemplate, in the event of a terrorist attack on our soil, is the level of fear that will arise among those who should have acted beforehand and didn’t, and among those who shouldn’t have acted and did. In particular, our “elites” will have much to answer for in a time when the public will be especially unforgiving.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
It’s interesting. My husband was in antiterrorism when the Pentagon was hit on 9/11. I still recall some of the ridiculous things people were saying to him at the time - they were quite willing to impose virtual martial law and waive their civil rights. Now of course we’re living in a ‘police state’, when the odious Shrub has taken far less draconian measures than they themselves were recommending at the time.
Incroyable…
August 28th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Lets also not forget that the biggest and most aggressive force that keeps us from securing our borders to any functional degree is the radical leftardic anti sovereignty wing of the new liberal movement.
August 28th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
That’s the new progressive movement, Grimmy. What they fail to completely relate to us, however, is just where it is they would have us progress. I don’t think they know, actually. They don’t look at consequences beyond the next election.
August 28th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
That’s OK.
In 2008 they are going to have to deal with a whole lot of questions they haven’t had to think about for 8 years because they’ve been sitting on the sidelines and lobbing spitballs at anyone who tries to do anything concrete.
It will be extremely interesting to watch what falls out when they are in charge. Watching the 110th Congress so far, I’m betting we won’t see any bold new changes in direction.