From: Dan Veeneman <cypherp@decode.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:51:51 +0800
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com
Subject: SWAT: A Growth Industry
Message-ID: <wPi1Fe1w165w@decode.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



US News & World Report 11/17/97
Everyone gets into the terrorism game

Too many SWAT teams spells confusion
BY DAVID E. KAPLAN

In 1995, Bill Clinton signed a presidential directive stating that the
nation has "no higher priority" than stopping terrorists who have
weapons of mass destruction.  Congress responded with new laws and
allocated more than a billion dollars in support.  The result has been
an extraordinary proliferation of counterterrorism programs, making this
one of the few areas of rapid growth in the federal budget.  But in the
rush to respond, say critics, government agencies have failed to
coordinate their efforts, and no one is even tracking how much taxpayer
money is being spent.

According to a September report by the General Accounting Office, more
than 40 federal agencies have roles in combating terrorism.  All of them
appear eager to gobble up the new funding.  Among the big winners is the
Pentagon, which is getting $52 million to train local officials to cope
with chemical, nuclear, and biological attacks.  Other agencies have set
up units inspired by NEST, the U.S. Department of Energy's Nuclear
Emergency Search Team, begun in the 1970s to thwart nuclear
extortionists.  The FBI has added DEST, its new Domestic Emergency
Support Team, and the State Department now runs FEST, the Foreign
Emergency Support Team.  The Public Health Service is busily planning
MMSTs, or Metropolitan Medical Strike Teams, for 100 cities.  And on
Energy Department drawing boards are plans for BEST, a Biological
Emergency Search Team, and CEST, its chemical counterpart.  (Critics
contend that the Energy Department lacks both expertise and a mandate to
deal with biological and chemical weapons, but that has not stopped it
from seeking funds.) And if an emergency is big enough, one can always
call in the Marines, who have formed their own $10 million Chemical
Biological Incident Response Force.

Among the biggest beneficiaries is the FBI, which has seen its
counterterrorism budget nearly triple to $243 million since 1994.
Bureau officials vow to "double the shoe leather" of agents working on
chemical and biological terrorism and are outfitting their elite Hostage
Rescue Team with $3.3 million worth of gas masks and protection suits.
The bureau also wants to build a multimillion-dollar Level 3 biolab, a
tightly sealed facility that would permit work with many of the world's
deadliest pathogens.  Some experts note that the Army and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention already have more than a dozen Level
3 labs; the bureau says it can best conduct forensic investigations in
its own facility.

The private sector is cashing in as well.  Contractors are arranging
much of the Pentagon's $52 million local training program, while
millions more are available for research and development.  "It's the
latest gravy train for consultants," says Larry Johnson, a terrorism
consultant.

Even the toughest critics acknowledge that many of the new programs are
needed.  For example, they agree that the training of local emergency
workers to deal with a chemical or biological attack is long overdue.
The problem, they say, is that the various programs have grown so
quickly that coordination and oversight have yet to catch up.  A
classified study this year for the CIA and Energy Department calls for a
national response program to deal with terrorism and weapons of mass
destruction, directed by the White House.  "The system is not well
organized at all," says former CIA head James Woolsey, one of the study
group's co-chairs.

One sign of the lack of oversight can be seen at the Office of
Management and Budget, the White House agency charged with managing the
federal budget.  An OMB guide lists over 600 areas of specialization by
the agency's staff, including entries for Micronesia and marine mammals.
Yet nowhere is there an analyst tracking the budget for
counterterrorism, a national security priority.  "It's not something we
have a hard number for," says an OMB analyst.

The rapid expansion of programs--likely to cost billions of dollars
overall--has left some observers dismayed.  "It was not our intent to
create this thing," says John Sopko, who as deputy chief counsel to Sen.
Sam Nunn played a key role in drafting legislation to respond to the new
terrorism.  "We did not want a massive entitlement program for
counterterrorism."


--
cypherp@decode.com (Dan Veeneman)
Cryptography, Security, Privacy BBS  +1 410 730 6734   Data/FAX