7 1/2 years later, more of the same intelligence failures

Note: This post takes a more in-depth look into a single document than I'd normally care to do, but I feel the way I've done it is the only way to make the conclusions clear.

"Information systems contribute to every aspect of homeland security. Although American information technology is the most advanced in the world, our country's information systems have not adequately supported the homeland security mission. Databases used for federal law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, public health surveillance, and emergency management have not been connected in ways that allow us to comprehend where information gaps or redundancies exist. . . . To secure the homeland better, we must link the vast amounts of knowledge residing within each government agency while ensuring adequate privacy."

(From the first National Strategy for Homeland Security, released in July 2002. This document was commissioned by President Bush, and prepared by the Office of Homeland Security. That November, OHS was expanded into the Department of Homeland Security; one of its primary objectives was to fix the problems described above.)

Fast-forward 7 and a half years. The White House today released a preliminary analysis of the systemic failures that allowed for the failed Christmas day terrorist attack. It starts off like this:

"Though all of [the information needed to recognize the plot] was available to all-source analysts at the CIA and the NCTC prior to the attempted attack, the dots were never connected, and as a result, the problem appears to be more about a component failure to "connect the dots," rather than a lack of information sharing."

The point the review is trying to make here is that the systemic failures this time were different than the ones that led to 9-11, and later to the creation of the DHS. However, the following can be found later in the review:

"No single component of the CT [counter-terrorism] community assumed responsibility for the threat reporting and followed it through by ensuring that all necessary steps were taken to disrupt the threat. This argues that a process is needed to track terrorist threat reporting to ensure that departments and agencies are held accountable for running down all leads associated with high visibility and high priority plotting efforts, in particular against the U.S. Homeland."

In other words, everyone in the counter-terrorism community assumed someone else would handle it. Sounds to me like a failure of communication, of precisely the sort that the DHS was made to prevent.

This can be seen more clearly later in the review, when it gets into questions about the terrorist watch lists, saying that "Although Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was included in the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), the failure to include Mr. Abdulmutallab in a watchlist is part of the overall systemic failure." The watchlisting process is described in the review as follows: First, the NCTC "consolidates all information on known and suspected international terrorists in the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment. NCTC then makes this data available to the FBI-led Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), which reviews nominations for inclusion in the master watchlist called the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB)."

This is the process that was used in considering whether Abdulmutallab should be placed on the watchlist. However, according to the review, "Hindsight suggests that the evaluation by watchlisting personnel of the information contained in the State cable nominating Mr. Abdulmutallab did not meet the minimum derogatory standard to watchlist. Watchlisting would have required all of the available information to be fused so that the derogatory information would have been sufficient . . . Watchlist personnel had access to additional derogatory information in databases that could have been connected to Mr. Abdulmutallab, but that access did not result in them uncovering the biographic information that would have been necessary for placement on the watchlist." (emphasis mine)

A bit of extra research led me to an audit of the FBI's watchlist nomination practices released in May 2009, which found, among other things, that "initial watchlist nominations created by FBI field offices often contained inaccuracies or were incomplete, leading to delays in the inclusion of known or suspected terrorists on the watchlist."

So, it seems the complete picture on the watchlist question is something like this: All the information necessary to secure a place on the watchlist for Abdulmutallab was available in intelligence databases. However, the nomination for his consideration (likely drawn up by someone at the FBI) did not include enough information to get him on the list. Those who reviewed the nomination likely assumed that it had all the pertinent information, and they found that it wasn't enough to put Abdulmutallab on the watchlist. Furthermore, this precise sort of problem has been recognized at least since last May, but the gap has not been fixed. The administration's review tries to confuse the issue and make it about individual failures to "connect the dots", but a careful analysis makes it clear that this is precisely the sort of communication problem that the DHS was supposed to make a thing of the past. The intelligence was there, but communication was so poor that nobody involved seemed to have known whose job it was to analyze it more thoroughly - those who drew up the nomination, or those who reviewed it.

The review itself even seems to concede that it's talking about the same old intelligence problems. In the very next paragraph, it states that while Abdulmutallab had a U.S. visa, revocation of it "would have only occurred if there had been a successful integration of intelligence by the CT community, resulting in his being watchlisted." If "the CT community" failed to integrate intelligence, why try to frame the issue as failures of individual components?

The fact that many people within the CT community had access to databases with the information necessary for decisive action is commendable, but ultimately irrelevant. There was, nevertheless, a remarkable failure to communicate. There's a big difference between making a massive database of mostly useless information available to several agencies, and effective communication between those agencies regarding which pieces of that information are most relevant, and who has the responsibility for connecting each of the dots. For instance, if the concerns of the terrorist's own father that he was planning something of the sort had been communicated with the sort of priority any rational person would place on them, it's hard to imagine it wouldn't have shown up in the watchlist nomination, and even harder to imagine that it wouldn't be enough to get him on the watchlist.

People sometimes make mistakes. Systems sometimes fail. The men and women of the counter-terrorism community cannot be expected to be perfect. But the last thing they or any other American needs is an administration that passes off the same old failures that clearly ought to have been more thoroughly addressed in the past, as something completely different. This was a failure of inter-agency communication and cooperation, and must be discussed as such if anything good is to come of the intelligence review.

Update (1-8-10): It turns out the watchlist nomination was made by the U.S. embassy in Nigeria, after CIA officers there spoke with the suspect's father. However, the nomination seemed to suffer from the same problems detailed in the FBI audit, so the same point still stands.

Sources (all PDF files):

National Strategy for Homeland Security, Office of Homeland Security, July 2002

Summary of the White House Review of the December 25, 2009 Attempted Terrorist Attack

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's Terrorist Watchlist Nomination Practices; U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division; May 2009

Fall '09 grades

Intro. to Differential Equations with Linear Algebra - A
Material and Energy Balances - A-
Organic Chemistry I - A-
Ethics - A

Term GPA - 3.86
Cumulative GPA - 3.95

Sure, it's the lowest term GPA I've had yet at CU, but I think it's quite alright. :)

college announcements

I've done very well this semester, but none of my grades are determined until I make it through finals, this Saturday through next Tuesday.


My first final is on Saturday, and it is in differential equations, the last dedicated math course on the standard chemical or biological engineering curriculum.Of course, being in an engineering major means this won't by any means be the last I see of math. But I have had class time dedicated specifically to math in all the time I've been in school since I started kindergarten, and it will be strange to leave that behind.

I've decided to add a minor in philosophy to my planned coursework at college. I have always been interested in the field, and I've enjoyed my Ethics class this semester immensely. I'm signed up for two more philosophy courses next semester, and I'm very much looking forward to them.

Mission statement (work in progress), take 2

To remain actively engaged in life.

To look at the world with wonder, and embrace my natural desire to understand it more fully.

To embrace the full spectrum of my emotions, rather than running from the ones that make me uncomfortable.

To take full responsibility for my choices.

To try my best to understand others, fully realizing that everyone has hopes, fears, desires, and the other things which drive me.

To seek out kindred spirits, and to intensify life with and through mutual respect and understanding.

To maintain a true and independent identity by being true to myself above and before all else.

The free market

The other day, I was paying for groceries with my debit card at one of the self-checkout lanes of a grocery store. It occurred to me that the entire process is incredibly bizarre.

After all, I walked into the store with nothing of value, left nothing of value behind, and left with enough food for a week. I did this without dealing with a single representative of the store or its interests. And this was perfectly legal.

Paper money works essentially the same way; but at least when cash changes hands, this is an exchange of a physical good which has a definite worth determined by the market. The only thing you have to have faith in when accepting cash is that it will be worth what you think it's worth when you decide to spend it.

With debit cards and the like, there is a virtual, rather than physical, exchange of money; so there are two layers of good faith involved in the exchange: faith in cash, and faith in the digital systems' ability to properly represent cash flow in a virtual environment.

Does it really make sense to rely on these two factors? With the state of the economy, the public debt, and the projected budget deficits for the next several years, it seems as though our nation's financial course is unsustainable. It's not difficult to imagine the total financial collapse of the Federal government, which would result (among other things) in a massive devaluation of American cash. Computer systems, furthermore, are accessible to all the immoral computer geeks of the world.

In short, on a daily basis, we place an enormous amount of faith on these two factors which seem fundamentally unworthy of our faith. Is this a sensible system; and, more to the point, is it a sustainable system?

Separate but equal?

The fight over same-sex marriage in America rages on.

With the vote in Maine three days ago, gay marriage has now been forbidden by the people in 31 states - every state in which the issue has come to a popular vote. In other words, no American electoral majority has ever supported gay marriage.

Many liberals would be quick to point out that it's important to keep this in perspective, remembering all the progress that has been made, and keeping in mind that the demographic momentum is in favor of same-sex marriage, since young people mostly think gays should be allowed to marry. Others would point to the vote on the same day in which Washington was added to the list of states whose voters have approved "everything but marriage" - civil unions with all or nearly all of the protections afforded by marriage - as a heartening sign.

Many would even go so far as to say that the fact that civil unions appear to be a more attainable goal makes them a more worthy goal. The pragmatist in me understands this line of thought. The pursuit of marriage equality in America is, even today, an incredibly daunting task. Large percentages of the electorate still view homosexuality as not just immoral but sinful; so they naturally believe that it is their duty as Americans to stop any attempts to normalize it, and that by doing so they are saving America from damnation.

These people are willing to do incredible mental gymnastics to find justifications for their opposition to same-sex marriage that appear logical to the average person. But it's much harder to logically justify opposition to civil unions, since they can't be seen to involve a redefinition of traditional marriage. The effect of this fact is that, in places where a slim majority opposes same sex marriage, a slim majority also supports civil unions. And of course, equality of legal recognition for gay couples seems far more important than the terminology; so it seems reasonable to forget about marriage (at least for a while), and focus on getting civil unions.

But let's think, for a moment, of the implications of legalizing civil unions, rather than marriage, for same-sex couples.

The logic of civil unions rests on the precept that homosexual relationships should only be legally recognized by setting up a separate system, for them to use, where normal people would get married. Civil unions, therefore, accept that a homosexual relationship is fundamentally different from what is normal and acceptable in polite society - and that, to reflect this, we must use a different set of legal protections for their relationships. All this, while proclaiming that we are affirming their equal rights.

But how can we possibly affirm equal rights through separate legal protections? Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution says, in part, "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." For a long time, racial segregation in America was justified by saying that as long as the public services afforded to non-whites were equal, it was alright if they were separate, if society demanded so. In the 1954 supreme court case Brown v. Board of Education, the court unanimously ruled that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Cannot the same be said of separate legal codes to recognize relationships?

This is why I am a supporter of gay marriage, rather than the more pragmatic civil unions. Granted, I generally think there are far more pressing issues facing America, and the world, than the question of who can marry who - that's why this is the first blog post I've written dedicated to the topic - but that doesn't make the current situation regarding marriage in America any less unjust. It is my sincere hope that the American electorate can manage to get its head out of its ass and realize the clear and unequivocal truth - that gays have, and have always had, the right to marry; and must in turn be given the legal ability to do so.

Mission statement (work in progress)

To live.

To look at the world with wonder, and embrace my natural desire to understand it more fully.

To remain at all times open to the fluctuations of my mood; to accept all emotions that come to me as parts of the same unified whole.

To seek out kindred spirits, and to intensify life with and through mutual respect and understanding.

To maintain a true and independent identity by being true to myself above and before all else.

cathartic release

forever and a day
by zach freier

you walked with me
that night through the
empty city streets
under a sky blackened
by clouds.

neither of us knew
the way, but i didn't
care, because
as long as we were
together, i was where
i needed to be.

but every time i
looked at you, you
seemed fainter, your eyes
dimmer, your face
more transparent, and
i knew you were leaving.

i asked if you remembered
all the times you said
you'd always be
there for me,
forever and a day.

you turned to look
into my eyes one last
time, and told me that
i didn't need you,
that even if i
don't know my way,
i'll always walk
in the right direction.

i closed my eyes as
you said you'd always
love me, and when i opened
them, you were gone.

i am lost without you.