Are we safer now than in 2001?

[Donkey®]

Audit: Anti-terror case data flawed - Yahoo! News

Originally Posted by article

Audit: Anti-terror case data flawed



By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer 49 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Federal prosecutors counted immigration violations, marriage fraud and drug trafficking among anti-terror cases in the four years after 9/11 even though no evidence linked them to terror activity, a Justice Department audit said Tuesday.

Overall, nearly all of the terrorism-related statistics on investigations, referrals and cases examined by department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine were either diminished or inflated. Only two of 26 sets of department data reported between 2001 and 2005 were accurate, the audit found.

Responding, a Justice spokesman pointed to figures showing that prosecutors in the department's headquarters for the most part either accurately or underreported their data — underscoring what he called efforts to avoid pumping up federal terror statistics.

The numbers, used to monitor the department's progress in battling terrorists, are reported to Congress and the public and help, in part, shape the department's budget.

"For these and other reasons, it is essential that the department report accurate terrorism-related statistics," the audit concluded.

Fine's office took care to say the flawed data appear to be the result of "decentralized and haphazard" methods of collection or disagreement over how the numbers are reported, and do not appear to be intentional.

Still, the errors led Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., to question whether the department had exaggerated the number of terror cases.

"If the
Department of Justice can't even get their own books in order, how are we supposed to have any confidence they are doing the job they should be?" said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the department. "Whether this is just an accounting error or an attempt to pad terror prosecution statistics for some other reason, the Department of Justice of all places should be classifying cases for what they are, not what they want us to think them to be."

Auditors looked at 26 categories of statistics — including numbers of suspects charged and convicted in terror cases, and terror-related threats against cities and other U.S. targets — compiled by the
FBI, Justice's Criminal Division, and the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys.

It found that data from the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys were the most severely flawed. Auditors said the office, which compiles statistics from the 94 federal prosecutors' districts nationwide, both under- and over-counted the number of terror-related cases during a four-year period.

The office has since agreed to change the way it counts and classifies anti-terrorism cases, said department spokesman Dean Boyd.

Boyd denied suggestions that the department pumped up its numbers. He said Criminal Division prosecutors at Justice headquarters and the FBI have overhauled their respective case reporting systems since 2004 for a more accurate picture of terror-related workloads. Both agencies, he said, were strained to accurately report terrorism data in the flood of cases immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"The notion that the Justice Department intentionally inflated its statistics is false and flatly contradicted by the OIG report itself," Boyd said.

In all but one area, Criminal Division prosecutors either accurately stated or underreported their data — the ones the department usually uses in public statements about its counterterror efforts, Boyd noted. He said the Justice Department has already completed most of the fixes recommended in the audit.

Much of the problem stemmed from how that office defines anti-terrorism cases.

A November 2001 federal crackdown on security breaches at airports, for example, yielded arrests on immigration and false document charges, but no evidence of terrorist activity. Nonetheless, the attorneys' office lumped them in with other anti-terror cases since they were investigated by federal Joint Terrorism Task Forces or with other counterterror measures.

Other examples, according to the audit, included:

_Charges against a marriage-broker for being paid to arrange six fraudulent marriages between Tunisians and U.S. citizens.

_Prosecution of a Mexican citizen who falsely identified himself as another person in a passport application.

_Charges against a suspect for dealing firearms without a license. The prosecutor handling the case told auditors it should not have been labeled as anti-terrorism.

"We do not agree that law enforcement efforts such as these should be counted as anti-terrorism," the audit concluded. Even if those cases were not taken into account, the audit said, the U.S. attorneys' office had overstated statistics in all other categories it reported.

Pretty much what most of us (not in Bush's pocket) thought...but it's still pathetic to read.

[Diesel66]

Some things are vastly improved (dam safety)

Much of the problem stemmed from how that office defines anti-terrorism cases.

A November 2001 federal crackdown on security breaches at airports, for example, yielded arrests on immigration and false document charges, but no evidence of terrorist activity. Nonetheless, the attorneys' office lumped them in with other anti-terror cases since they were investigated by federal Joint Terrorism Task Forces or with other counterterror measures.

Other examples, according to the audit, included:

_Charges against a marriage-broker for being paid to arrange six fraudulent marriages between Tunisians and U.S. citizens.

_Prosecution of a Mexican citizen who falsely identified himself as another person in a passport application.

You dont see how false ids/immigration are linked to terrorism ?

[RMNIXON]

Government bean counters screwing up again? Government pads statistical data at all levels all the time. That is how they justify constant growth and expenditure in their departments.

I don't see how this is relevant to if we are actually safer or not? That would depend on actual numbers of threats made and avoided? So far things look rather good. I am not that concerned with the paperwork afterward.

[Dumpy Dooby]

I felt a lot safer when Clinton was in office. Things have felt more unstable with Bush.

[tbone]

We can only sustain wars abroad for so long and once that fighting has stopped, the conflict will eventually get back to US soil. So while we have had a nice lull for a couple years, I don't think we are safer, to the contrary I think our foreign policy has spawned more terrorists intent on harming US citizens.

[SoFlaJDM]

we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here, so yeah i feel a lot safer

[JSmythe]

I feel safer if only because we have done alot to reform and improve our homeland defenses vis. terrorism.

And the whole "fighting them over there" thing, is true. We are killing alot of terrorists in the ME right now. Ones who would have nothing better to do but plot about hitting civilian targets in the western world if they weren't getting their shit bombed.

[Nonphixion]

I feel decidedly less safe now than I did then in 2001. We are inflaming their spirits and radicalizing moderate (and harmless) Muslims into terrorists and freedom fighters against the occupation. Insurgent levels have shot up by a figure something like 500% since we began "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in March of 2003.

There is no way we are making the world any more safe than it was before by launching wars on personal Vendetta (GWB invading Baghdad because his father could not) and waging them recklessly.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

I feel safer if only because we have done alot to reform and improve our homeland defenses vis. terrorism.

You can still walk across the border.

Originally Posted by JSmythe

And the whole "fighting them over there" thing, is true. We are killing alot of terrorists in the ME right now. Ones who would have nothing better to do but plot about hitting civilian targets in the western world if they weren't getting their shit bombed.

I disagree. We are training them over there. We opened a school for terrorists and we are the biggest recruiting tool they could dream of. We could kill for decades and there would still be fanatics because we are making more than we kill through our actions.

Besides, if they were really "terrorists" they would come here and hit civilian targets anyway. Terrorists don't want to attack the military, they want civilian targets. They are people who want our military off of their land. If someone invaded the US and you faught back would that make you a terrorist?

[phreak]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I felt a lot safer when Clinton was in office.

who didn't? not many knew of the islamic extremists' hatred for us or what they were capable of.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

I feel safer if only because we have done alot to reform and improve our homeland defenses vis. terrorism.

And the whole "fighting them over there" thing, is true. We are killing alot of terrorists in the ME right now. Ones who would have nothing better to do but plot about hitting civilian targets in the western world if they weren't getting their shit bombed.

Partially correct and Wrong.

Partially correct in that we do look for more things, though the measures that have been put in place seem to be pretty expensive and not entirely affective. Some of the other measures have been controversial in regards to how much they trample the constitution. Realistically we will always be at risk, but we must not let security trump freedom. People talk of the terrorists winning if we leave Iraq, but the terrorists have also won when our government thinks it is ok to spy on citizens without a warrant.

Fighting them over there is recruiting more terrorists than it is killilng. Every time we have a stray bomb kill some family. Every day we occupy that country and have 50-150 people dying every day, more and more resort to terrorism. Fighting them there so we don't fight them here is a lame argument. They have no traditional army, they have no planes, they have no navy. They attack us by hijacking airplanes, putting bombs in cars, and blowing up chlorine tanks. To affectively fight terrorism we need a secure border, secure airports, secure sea ports. We need to stop buying oil from the region because thats how they make their money. No money = no money to develop wmd. We also need a foreign policy that does not give them dozens of reasons they feel are valid to attack us.

To answer the thread title question, no we are not any safer today. I don't know if i would say that we are less safe, but we are definitely not any safer.

[ballz2wallz]

I feel safe. I felt safe then, and I feel safe now. I felt safe 10 yrs ago too.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

You can still walk across the border.

Ooooo, now I'm scared. Notwithstanding the fact I am in favor of being able to monitor the movement of all people across our borders, this is a completely irrelevant point. Your unstated conclusion is that unless we guard the border, there is no way to be any safer, which is untrue.

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I disagree. We are training them over there. We opened a school for terrorists and we are the biggest recruiting tool they could dream of. We could kill for decades and there would still be fanatics because we are making more than we kill through our actions.

Yes, terrorists are getting more recruits, and they are being killed. I don't think you realize how many insurgents the military has killed in the ME.

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Besides, if they were really "terrorists" they would come here and hit civilian targets anyway. Terrorists don't want to attack the military, they want civilian targets. They are people who want our military off of their land. If someone invaded the US and you faught back would that make you a terrorist?

You do realize that your two paragraphs contradict themselves, right? a) we are training more terrorists b) they aren't really terrorists

I dont want to get into a discussion about the make-up of the iraqi insurgency. Its impossible to argue with my point that we are killing alot of people who would otherwise be plotting to attack america. Are those people being replaced by more willing recruits? Debatable, but those recruits are just that, green, inexpirienced foot soldiers trying to engage military targets. I'd much rather be fighting that than highly trained, veteren operatives who are trying to slip into the country undetected and then blow up... i dunno... my local mall?

We are safer than we were on 9/11 because we have done something to improve our security. Many somethings, but in order to say the statement "we are safer" really all you need is the addition of 1 new police man somewhere in kansas to say that technically, yes, we are safer.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Partially correct and Wrong.

Partially correct in that we do look for more things, though the measures that have been put in place seem to be pretty expensive and not entirely affective. Some of the other measures have been controversial in regards to how much they trample the constitution. Realistically we will always be at risk, but we must not let security trump freedom. People talk of the terrorists winning if we leave Iraq, but the terrorists have also won when our government thinks it is ok to spy on citizens without a warrant.

not all the measures have been good, but some are, right? and if just one thing we did was right then we are a little safer, are we not?

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Fighting them over there is recruiting more terrorists than it is killilng. Every time we have a stray bomb kill some family. Every day we occupy that country and have 50-150 people dying every day, more and more resort to terrorism. Fighting them there so we don't fight them here is a lame argument. They have no traditional army, they have no planes, they have no navy. They attack us by hijacking airplanes, putting bombs in cars, and blowing up chlorine tanks. To affectively fight terrorism we need a secure border, secure airports, secure sea ports.

The whole recruiting more than we kill thing is an assumption, but given that it is true my point stands that we are killing terrorists who otherwise would be trying to strike the homeland. Therefore we are safer. I am not supporting the idea that the war is good because we are killing terrorists, but technically, it is making us safer everytime we kill someone who would rather be plotting to attack us here in America.

Originally Posted by DosEquis

We need to stop buying oil from the region because thats how they make their money. No money = no money to develop wmd. We also need a foreign policy that does not give them dozens of reasons they feel are valid to attack us.

Agreed.

[tbone]

Have you been out of the country recently? Answer me if you feel safe while traveling abroad.

Internal measures have to be right 100% of the time and nothing is EVER right 100% of the time. Sorry to burst you bubble, but there are far more people who hate America now then ever before because of our (the administrations') ignorance in foreign policy.

Everytime we kill a terrorist, we create 10 more. Granted the ones we kill may be more capable of carrying out big attacks, but give the new ones a little time and we will have 10 more capable of big attacks. It's scaring the hell out of me how much Bush and company have damaged us for the future.

We had such political capital after Sept. 11th, the entire world was on our side, we had a chance to stamp out terrorism permanently in Afghanistan and other countries who condoned it, instead we got sidetracked in Iraq (the 2nd Vietnam). We could have easily declared war on just about anyone including Iran and the world community would have supported us with credible evidence of terrorism or would have placed immense pressure to rid their countries of terrorism. Instead, now due to stupid mistakes, arrogance, and no good rational for invading Iraq, we no longer have any political capital and are rapidly losing our status as the lone world power, even as the target on our backs has grown 300%.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I felt a lot safer when Clinton was in office. Things have felt more unstable with Bush.

You mean when most of the planning and preparation for 9/11 was happening? I felt safe right up until that guy smashed my car window and tried to pull me out. Now I feel uneasy when I'm driving. Should I blame the current police chief?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I feel safe. I felt safe then, and I feel safe now. I felt safe 10 yrs ago too.

You overall odds of dying in a terror strike are probably not that large. Just look at how many people are murdered or killed in car accidents in a given year! What we do is take offense at the United States as a target. Suddenly we take the death of what will probably be people we don't know very personally. Not that this is a bad thing.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by 7960

You mean when most of the planning and preparation for 9/11 was happening?

New York Times Editorial Guidelines on How Safe We Are?

In the case of another attack:

All Bush's Fault!


In the case we are not attacked in large spans of time:

No real threat, all Bush Administration fear mongering!

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

And the whole "fighting them over there" thing, is true. We are killing alot of terrorists in the ME right now. Ones who would have nothing better to do but plot about hitting civilian targets in the western world if they weren't getting their shit bombed.

1) A large number of the "terrorists" in Iraq are really insurgents and would never have attacked the US left to there own devices.

2) Those who would "otherwise have attacked the west" are still killing US soldiers, and when they US leaves, they can go attack the west.

3) It only takes a few terrorists in the US to execute a plot, they don't need hundreds of those that are willing to die.