Poll: Americans Feel Bush Policy Too Skewed Against Liberty

TERROR WARS
Poll Shows Security Imbalance In US

by Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor

Washington (UPI) April 26, 2007

By a large margin, Americans feel the Bush administration has tipped the balance of security against liberty too far towards security, a new UPI/Zogby polls shows.

But the public remains closely divided on the president's most controversial security programs, favoring by small margins warrantless wiretaps against terror suspects and the broad mining by federal agencies of personal data about U.S. citizens.

When asked whether the Bush administration had "found the right balance between personal security and personal freedom," only one-third (33 percent) agreed. Nearly half (49 percent) agreed instead that the "administration has tipped the balance too far towards security."

Only 7 percent agreed with the third option, that the balance was tipped "too far towards freedom, leaving our security weak."

Asked about specific security programs run by the administration, Americans were generally more supportive of those targeting foreigners.

Two-thirds (66 percent) agreed that the U.S. government had the right to collect personal data about foreign airline passengers coming to the country, which has been a source of ongoing friction with the European Union.

Fifty-five percent agreed that the Terrorism Surveillance Program was "a necessary and legal tool to protect Americans," and 42 percent disagreed. Under the program, the National Security Agency conducts court-authorized but warrantless surveillance of international communications by Americans with suspected terrorists.

But 62 percent also agreed with the proposition that "the government should always be required to get a warrant or court order before monitoring the phone conversations or e-mails of American citizens or legal immigrants."

Americans also appeared closely divided on the merits of federal agencies analyzing vast collections of personal data to look for patterns and connections that might reveal terrorist activity.

Asked about such techniques, known as data-mining, 50 percent agreed that U.S. agencies should be allowed to use them on personal data "like credit card transactions, charitable donations and travel histories," while 46 percent disagreed.

Men were more likely than women to believe that the administration had got the balance between security and freedom right (39 percent for men; 28 percent for women). Women were more likely than men to believe that the balance had tipped too far toward security (53 percent, compared with 45 percent for men).

When broken down by the self-professed ideology of respondents, the survey reveals a predictable near-unanimity among progressives and liberals that the balance has tipped too far towards security. Sixty percent of moderates feel the same way -- 11 percent more than the population as a whole.

Looking at party affiliation, 69 percent of Republicans believe the administration has the balance right, but only 28 percent of independents agree. Fifty-three percent of independents believe the balance is skewed too far to security, 4 percent more than the general population.

The idea that the administration had struck a good balance grew more popular with the increasing age of the respondents. Among 18- to 24-year-olds, 64 percent believed the balance was skewed to security, and only 18 percent thought the administration had it right.

But that balance tilts gradually through increasing age ranges, until among those 70 and over, 49 percent believe the balance to be right and only 35 percent see it as tilted to security.

Similar age-related variations can be seen in opinions about individual programs. Only 38 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds support the Terrorism Surveillance Program, compared with 55 percent of the general population and 72 percent of those 70 and older.

There was also a pronounced gender gap. Sixty percent of men believed the program was "legal and necessary," compared with only 50 percent of women.

Independents were almost as supportive of the program as the general population (53 percent, compared to 55), but only 20 percent of Democrats see it as legal and necessary, compared with 93 percent of Republicans.

There was lukewarm support for an administration proposal, contained in the intelligence authorization bill currently stalled in the Senate, to suspend certain provisions of the Privacy Act to facilitate counter-terrorism information sharing.

Only 39 percent of respondents agreed with that idea, and 54 percent opposed it. Support was much higher among Republicans (68 percent), slightly lower among independents (33 percent), and almost negligible among Democrats (16 percent).

Source: United Press International

On that so-called "Shi'a Crescent"

Beirut Memories (I)

6.4.07

News reports from Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon harp on and on about the emerging "Shi`a Crescent," which now poses an allegedly mortal danger to the West (whatever that is!). In the last 60 years, we have seen the Red Scare, the Green Scare (politicized Sunni Islam), and of course, the Axis of Evil, which still gets a lot of air time. The political "flavour of the month" is clearly Iran, which, after the events of the last week or so, is increasingly in the cross-hairs of those who believe that traditions, societies, and histories can be collapsed into a catchy soundbyte or a caricature of the Evil Other.

The events, actions, assumptions and textures of everyday life in the Middle East rarely attract the attention of pundits and politicians. Unless, of course, they want to attribute some aspect of foreigners' propensity for evil to their "cultural traditions." If I had a dime for every time I've heard anthropology used to justify or facilitate the war on terror, I'd be able to retire 20 years early. (Perhaps opening an anthropological boot camp and requiring politicians and foreign affairs journalists to attend for six weeks would help bring the hysteria and b.s. level in the US down a few notches. But then, without a good "daily hate," the current administration would not last a week.)

[For anyone inclined to do further reading, I'd suggest Mahmood Mamdani's essay, "Good Muslim/Bad Muslim", in which he does a great job of demolishing "culture talk" and other misuses of anthropology by politicians, journalists, and military planners.]

In an effort to take a closer look at supposedly Very Scary People from a different angle, I'll be posting some memories of my five years in Lebanon for the next week. Here is the first installment:

For the better part of the 1990s, my Lebanese-born husband and I lived and worked in Beirut. In 1994, we organized and held an international conference entitled "Lessons from Lebanon" to explore alternative approaches to conflict resolution and post-war reconciliation. The conference brought together dozens of people from all walks of life and all faith communities who had lived through Lebanon's 16 years of internecine violence. Three days of presentations, workshops and discussions culminated in the formation of task forces to deal with post-war issues of particular concern to the conference participants: the fate of the 800,000 war displaced and their reintegration into the communities they had fled, the situation of the war handicapped, and children's attempts to come to grips with the war, as well as state attempts to educate a new generation to avoid war. A very earnest and kind gentleman of 50, Dr. Ahmad, was a key member of the latter task force. A Shi'i Muslim and a former Lebanese Army officer, Dr. Ahmad had taken his family to the UK for five years in the 1980s, where he received his Ph.D. in childhood education.

As the task forces met and worked, we got to know all the members quite well. Dr. Ahmad invited us to his home for dinner, and we immediately got along with his wife and children. His wife, Lubna, taught Shakespeare in a high school in South Lebanon. She had really enjoyed her time in London and loved English literature and theatre.

Dr. Ahmad's extended family had lost members and houses in the many years of the war, which affected South Lebanon disproportionately, but they expressed no bitterness at all. Although proud to be Shi'a, they were not demonstrably devout. Lubna dressed in blue jeans and kneelength tailored dresses and did not cover her shoulder length brown hair. She had blue-green eyes, as do I, and we joked that maybe we were distantly related. (Many people from Shi'i villages in Southern Lebanon have blue or green eyes.)

In March 1996, as regional political and military events were heating up and anxieties were rising, we learned from a member of the children of war task force that Dr. Ahmad had suffered a cerebral aneurysm while at work. He had had a very bad headache all day, decided to put his head down on his desk to rest, and never awoke again. We immediately went to see him in the hospital, where he was unconscious and breathing thanks to a respirator. Lubna, ashen-faced, was holding his hand and not taking her eyes from his face. I knew he was not going to make it, but asked her if they had given him cumiden and other anticoaglulants, trying to sound confident and sure that technology and modern pharmacology would pull him through.

Two weeks later, we learned that the hospital had turned off the respirator at the family's request and shortly thereafter, Dr. Ahmed had passed away with his wife and children and brothers at his side.

In Islam, one must be buried the same day one has died. But memorial services can take place at any time after the death and burial. There is usually a forty-day memorial service. About a week after his death, a memorial service was held for Dr. Ahmed in early April 1996, about a week before the outbreak of 'Operation: Grapes of Wrath', which was to bring more death and devastation to Lebanon's Shi'i community. George, my former husband, and I were invited to attend the service, held in the southern suburbs of Beirut, home to the city's Shi'a population, as well as some of the armed groups frequently mentioned in news reports, such as Hizbullah and the Amal militia.

We arrived to a large and modern mosque complex on a dismal rainy day. I was dressed in a black, grey, and copper striped blazer covering a black wool turtle neck shirt, a black knee-length skirt, black tights, and black pump shoes. George wore his best black suit and a white shirt with a royal blue tie. As we pulled up to the mosque, we realized that everyone but us was dressed in traditional attire. Some of the men wore turbans, none wore a western suit or tie, and all of the women, old and young, were wearing full black abayas, showing only their hands and eyes.

George and I attempted to enter the building together, but a man stopped us and firmly but politely indicated that I had to enter through the women's door at the other side of the hexagonal building. A crush of people surrounded us. I walked off feeling nervous, alone, and out of place, all the while trying to melt into the stream of women entering the mosque. I felt quite self-conscious about my outfit in this setting, but I was sure that once I entered the building, I'd see Lubna, and that she would be wearing a suit like mine.

But I was mistaken. Once I entered and found a seat I realized I was the only woman in the mosque who was not covered by an abaya. Across the large hexagonal space, I could see George, the only man present in a suit and tie.

My excruciating self-consciousness about being abaya-less soon diminished as speakers got up to recall the wonderful qualities of Dr. Ahmad and his contributions to his family, faith and society. All the women around me were crying, and young girls were coming through the crowd with decorative boxes of tissues and glasses of water. After an hour, the women around me and I became a small community of mourners, sharing tissues, handing one another water, and crying anew each time another speaker began eulogizing Dr. Ahmed and spoke of his young children.

After an hour and a half, some women in front of us got up and left. An older woman seated next to me said "shu!? felleen bakir!" ("What's this, they are leaving too early!") I agreed with her and she clasped my hand in hers until the mourning ceremony ended nearly an hour later.

Once we were all standing up and about to leave, she asked me who I was and how I came to be there. It turned out she was the eldest sister of Lubna, and she took me straight to her sister, the widow, who was wearing a black abaya. Lubna looked at me, her blue eyes red from crying and framed by her black headdress. She seemed happy to see me, abaya-less or not, and hugged me, kissing my face several times and thanking me for coming to the ceremony, and telling me she felt I was "like her sister." Her older sister, whom I'd been sitting next to for the last two hours, also began to hug and kiss me and thanked me for coming. We all started crying again.

I found George outside in the parking lot waiting for me near the car. "How come you didn't tell me that I was wearing the wrong thing?!"

He said "I had no idea; even though I grew up here in Lebanon, I was always in the Christian community. I have never been to a Muslim wedding or funeral until today."

We drove home through a grey and misty rain, listening to BBC reports that left little doubt that Lebanon would see more deaths, more mourning, more funerals, in the coming weeks. Thinking about Dr. Ahmed's memorial service, I realized it was not a "Muslim" or a "Shi'i" event, and that attire did not really matter. Though I'd walked into the mosque feeling so different and isolated, I came out feeling privileged that I had been able to participate with a community mourning the loss of one of its own. Being a Muslim and wearing an abaya had not really mattered; showing up and being there, open to the feelings of those present, did.

Lebanon Beirut Cultural Anthropology
Middle East
Politics
War and conflict

Is U.S. Government 'Outsourcing Its Brain'?

Someone from MITRE is a regular reader of this blog. Now you know where thet get the brains. :)
---
By Bernard Wysocki Jr.
Companies Featured in This Article: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Dow Jones

TYSONS CORNER, Va. -- The moment visitors arrive in the lobby of the campuslike headquarters of Mitre Corp., they're asked: Do you have a national-security clearance?

If the answer is yes, Mitre's receptionists tap a few computer keys to verify. If it's no, the visitor gets a special badge and a constant escort. It's the sort of scrutiny one might expect at the Defense Department or a U.S. intelligence agency.

Mitre is one step from that: a private company with one major client, the U.S. government. Mitre does high-tech engineering and other computer work for the Pentagon, various intelligence agencies ...

Excerpts

One flashpoint today is whether contractors hire other contractors without enough controls or competition. In March, Rep. Waxman introduced a bill that would put limits on contracts awarded without competitive bidding. It passed the House by a wide margin and is raising fears among contractors that it could dent their growth. Federal procurement is already expected to slow because of budget constraints and the slowing of the post-9/11 spending boom.

Rep. Waxman's staff, in a Feb. 8 memo, said that "at least one contractor hired to engage in contract oversight on the border project, Booz Allen Hamilton, may have a conflict of interest with Boeing Co.," the prime contractor. Booz Allen has done consulting work for Boeing and has been a member of the Boeing team on other contracts.

Ralph Shrader, chief executive at Booz Allen, flatly denies the charge. "I take the greatest exception to the idea of conflict of interest," Dr. Shrader says, adding that Booz Allen is doing "support" and "coordination" work on behalf of the government, and doesn't "oversee" Boeing. He adds that Booz Allen has for decades taken pains to avoid conflicts of interest, and has a rigorous process to avoid such conflicts. (Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, has hired Booz Allen to help the company with its news strategy.)

UN Security Or United Rape?

Related
UNSC: Sanctioning the next war of aggression
Security Council resolution on Iran a grave threat to international peace and security
---
March 26, 2007

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

We must defend justice with our lives lest we need justice to defend our lives


As I watched Iran being hauled in front of the United Nations ‘Security’ Council, a vivid picture conjured up in my mind – my native country Iran, a vulnerable and defenseless beauty being prepared for violation by brutal savages. As she struggles to defend her honor, no one is prepared to come to her aid, save a few. Even her own children, those raised on her soil hope she will be brutally raped. With lust-filled eyes, they hope to fulfill their ambitions on her ravaged ruins, her broken pride.

Who are these beasts, and what has transformed this United body to such a menace?

The most uninformed among us knows that the United States is dictating the rules at the ‘Security’ Council. The driving force behind the American policy makers’ actions is Israel represented by AIPAC and other Israeli representatives in the United States. However, while Zionism gives motivation to the neo-conservatives in Washington to rape and ravage the Middle-East, Washington stands to benefit from AIPAC’s/Israel’s commands.

Theodor Herzl, witnessing discrimination against Jews in Europe, was convinced that sovereign control over territory would guarantee Jews against discrimination. The location was not important. He sought the support of Europe’s wealthiest Jews to colonize territory. Max Nordau, a close friend of Herzl’s, stated that “we are going to Palestine to extend the moral boundaries of Europe as far as the Euphrates”. Chaim Weizmann’s analogy for the comparison of Arab to Jew was “the desert against civilization”. The attraction of Palestine was its appeal to the colonial powers, specifically Great Britain and the imposition of imperial control such as the British and Dutch East India Companies.

Today, the United States is the colonial power and the major investor in the region. Furthermore, as The Center for Public Integrity has demonstrated, The Carlyle Group profits from government and conflict ; a company that employed some of Washington’s most powerful figures, including former Secretary of State James Baker, former President George H.W. Bush, former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci and former FCC Chairman William Kennard, as well as former British Prime Minister John Major – not foregoing the Ladin and Saudi ties. Israel is no longer a nascent state, but en par with the world’s only super power – for not only does it have an arsenal of illegal nuclear warheads and one of the strongest conventional armies, but it has influence over US Congress, and many believe, the White House. Both Israel and the US need stretching room for expansion and more profit. Iran is key, it would appear.

One must surely question why Iran would be shunned by all the ‘Security’ council members. India’s case has demonstrated that non-permanent members are subject to coercion, but what of the permanent members?

France - If Iran’s legitimate rights are recognized, Iran would have to have her wealth returned to her; to the dismay of the Europeans. In 1973 France, Belgium, Spain, and Sweden, formed the joint stock company EURODIF. Sweden withdrew from the project in 1974. In 1975 Sweden’s 10 per cent share in EURODIF went to Iran as a result of an arrangement between France and Iran. The French government subsidiary company Cogema and the Iranian Government established the Sofidif (Société franco–iranienne pour l’enrichissement de l’uranium par diffusion gazeuse) enterprise with 60 per cent and 40 per cent shares, respectively. In turn, Sofidif acquired a 25 per cent share in EURODIF, which gave Iran its 10 per cent share of EURODIFI. In 1974, the Shah lent 1 billion dollars (and another 180 million dollars in 1977) for the construction of the factory, to have the right to buy 10% of the production. Iran remains a shareholder of Eurodif via Sofidif, a Franco-Iranian consortium shareholder which owns 25 % of Eurodif. According to The Wall Street Journal of Dec. 5, 2006, the price of enriched uranium has increased by 800 percent since 2001, and given the recent growing interest in nuclear fuel, and the commitment of suppliers, Eurodif would likely prefer to have Iran sanctioned than recognize her legitimate right. Especially if as before, they are not the ones who have to send soldiers to battlefields.

Bulletin 26 – Dual Use: Avoiding The Nuclear Precipice of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation not only confirms Iran’s share in Eurodif, but lends legitimacy to her wishes to exercise her inalienable right under Article IV of the NPT to enrich uranium indigenously versus the Russian import due to her past experience with foreign dealings [ ].

It must also be noted that Iran has a stake in the world's biggest open-pit uranium mine in the African state of Namibia where the United States buys its uranium for its nuclear power plants . Much like the 1953 era when the Americans and the British had their eyes on Iran’s precious resources, it would seem that uranium is one more incentive for the violation of Iran.

Russia – John D. Grace describes Russia as an "ally and opponent" of OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) and the same for oil consumers -- in other words, it is a "fulcrum." In spite of Grace’s generous description of Russia, it has raised a few eyebrows in Europe when it has cut off energy supplies at will and as a political tool. 6% of the total known oil reserves are in the former Soviet Union . However, as the world’s biggest supplier of natural gas and one of the largest suppliers of oil, it will greatly benefit from high oil prices due to sanctions and unrest in the Persian Gulf. This money-strapped nation was willing to supply Iran not only with enriched uranium, but with surface-to-air missiles. It has decided to halt its cooperation because it understands that conflicts in the Persian Gulf region will double the price of oil – much to its benefit; while at the same time to other Arab countries, much like the US is doing. Additionally, it also realizes that a ‘nuclear accident anywhere is a nuclear accident anywhere’. It could be that Russia has it on good authority that this irrational Administration means to bomb Bushehr . Having weighed the danger of contamination and their surplus profit from an attack on Iran, they opted to vote for the latter.

China - It would seem that with China’s growing appetite for oil, their vote would be illogical. However, China has been making remarkable discoveries of her own. Not only has she found oil deposits in Bohai Bay near Dalian (source – China Newnet), but after two years of exploration, it was publicly reported on March 24th that off the coast of Taiwan huge deposits of natural gas, known as the ‘ice that burns’ and labeled as the energy of the energy source of the future had been discovered. If Taiwan had been an ‘old war relic’ in the past, it makes her a prize worth fighting for. Would this make China sway her vote? Additionally, according to the BBC, China and Venezuela are working on making oil deals that will be mutually beneficial.

And finally, Great Britain. She was the instigator in the 1953 coup against the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadeq. In a role reversal, it would seem that today, GB is the one who is helping incite war. No doubt with her poor economy, as with the Iraq war, she would be happy with the crumbs off the US table.

What is important to remember is the following:

- It was the United Nations that established the State of Israel in 1948.
- It was the United Nations ‘Security’ Council that stood by idly as Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran for 3 years in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
- It was the United Nations ‘Security’ Council that watched Israel destroy Iraq’s peaceful nuclear technology, passed a resolution, but remained idle as Isarel continued with its path of destruction.
- It was the United Nations ‘Security’ Council that stood by while 500,000 children in Iraq were subjected to malnutrition and death.
- It was the United Nations ‘Security’ Council that stood by and watched America illegally invade Iraq without passing a resolution.
- It was the United Nations ‘Security’ Council that watched the Israelis destroy Lebanon for 33 days with American ammunition. One man at the UN ‘Security’ Council, John Bolton, ruled over the lives and deaths of the Lebanese.
- It was the United Nations ‘Security’ Council that watched Israel raze Palestinian homes over and over again.
- It is the United Nations ‘Security’ Council that is witnessing the starvation of Palestinians people, women and children alike.

And it is the United Nations ‘Security’ Council that is ordering the savage and cruel gang rape of Iran. They have passed resolution to take her defenses away. Under the pretext of her nuclear program, her inalienable right to enrich uranium for energy –Article IV of the NPT, they have passed a resolution that Iran must not have conventional weapons to defend herself when they come to attack her – to ravage her, to take all that is hers and her children’s.

Regardless of race, color, or religion, we are all equal under the law. To repeat a cliché, we are only as strong as the weakest link in the chain – this is humanity’s bond – a bind that if broken with indifference, will cause the demise of civilization as we know it. We must not remain complacent in the face of the insecurity that is about to take place – the UNSC’s violation of Iran. This is not a call for justice for Iran, nor for the children of Iran, but a call to disallow oppression. We must defend justice with our lives, lest one day we be in need of justice to defend our lives.

Baghdad poll numbers show low confidence in security, government

Politics

Rowan Scarborough, The Examiner
Mar 14, 2007 3:00 AM (2 days ago)
Current rank: # 93 of 19,878

WASHINGTON - A confidential poll for the Iraq government shows Baghdad citizens harbor a bleak outlook for future security, while Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki suffers low job-approval ratings.

The door-to-door survey of more than 4,000 residents in Baghdad Province in mid-February showed only 3 percent of respondents said security had improved in their neighborhoods in the past three months. Just 10 percent said it will improve in the next three months.

Baghdad is the central focus of President Bush’s Jan. 10 reinforcement plan of more than 25,000 troops to quell sectarian and terrorist violence.

“These numbers are bad,” said a U.S. Army source, who read the poll results to The Examiner on condition of anonymity. “They are all in the tank.”

The Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies, an Iraqi firm, conducted the poll for the al-Maliki government. Al-Maliki uses the numbers to assess public support for his policies.

There is a caveat, the Army source said. Surveyors went door to door at a time when the new counterinsurgency plan had just begun. The military reports that attacks declined in March, a trend that could bring higher numbers in the next government-sponsored poll.

“We changed strategy in part to address these issues in the poll,” the Army source said.

The United States worries that a lack of public confidence in security measures could mean residents are less likely to cooperate in providing tips on insurgent activity.

But Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O’Hanlon said poor polls numbers do not always translate that way.

“Even if people are somewhat pessimistic, it doesn’t mean they will refuse to help or actively oppose the effort,” he said. “It’s just as likely that they will hope to be proven wrong in their sentiments and give Maliki and the surge another chance.”

The survey addressed issues such as security, government approval and Shiite militias.

Al-Maliki’s job approval stood at 34 percent, down from 45 percent last September before waves of Sunni-Shiite violence rocked the capital. The number, however, was an uptick from the prime minister’s 25 percent rating in December.

On security, 32 percent of citizens considered their neighborhoods secure, compared with 43 percent in September.

In a bright spot for al-Maliki, who says he has tried to curtail militias and associated death squads, only 23 percent of residents believe those paramilitaries make Baghdad safer, as opposed to 32 percent in September.

rscarborough@dcexaminer.com

Examiner

Australian army imposter gatecrashed security meetings

12.30pm

---

Peter Walker
Thursday March 15, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

An Australian truck driver and convicted armed robber attended top-level military security meetings after posing as an army officer, it was reported today.

Peter Bennett began what the Age newspaper described as his "self-appointed military career" in September 2005.

The 54-year-old wore formal military dress - including decorations for supposed service in Vietnam and elsewhere - to gatecrash a formal dinner at an air force base in Melbourne.

There, he met senior figures including the head of Australia's air force, Air Vice Marshal Geoffrey Shepherd.

---

---

The Age pictured Bennett, who has pleaded guilty to impersonating a public official, dressed in a white jacket, bow tie and red cummerbund as he posed for a photograph with Mr Shepherd.

After managing to obtain an Australian defence forces identity card, he attended a series of meetings of Operation Acolyte, which planned security for last year's Commonwealth Games in Melbourne.

Werribee magistrates court, in Melbourne, heard yesterday that Bennett's "career" ended last March, when he was asked to provide proof of his service record after none could be found in military archives.

He promised to return with the paperwork but was not seen again. Police later raided his home and seized military items including uniforms, badges, medals and ribbon bars, the Age reported.

Bennett told the court he had done similar things before, saying his "foolish stupidity" stemmed from being turned down for military service on medical grounds in 1971. The case was adjourned until May for a pre-sentence report.

"If the army had have accepted me all those years ago I probably wouldn't have ended in the trouble I have," Bennett, who was released from prison in 1986 following a sentence for armed robbery, told the Age outside the court.

"Anzac Day won't be so good this year," he said, referring to the Australian and New Zealand public holiday in honour of the military held every April 25, the anniversary of the start of the ill-fated Gallipoli landings in 1915.

Global Infrastructure of Mass Surveillance

Intenational Campaign Against Mass Surveillance (CAMS) - Mar 3, 2007 - Full Story
Global security and the "war on terror" now dominate the global political agenda. Driven largely by the United States, a growing web of anti-terrorism and security measures are being adopted by nations around the world. This new "security" paradigm is being used to roll back freedom and increase police powers in order to exercise increasing control over individuals and populations

Lacking Grant Money, Scientists Shift Research To Defense And Security

Scientists switch focus to security

By Rebecca Knight in Boston

Published: February 25 2007 23:01 | Last updated: February 25 2007 23:01

Scientists are looking to focus their research on defence and homeland security as federal funding for scientific grants becomes harder to come by.

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, funding for non-defence research and development will shrink for the fourth consecutive year in fiscal 2008. The National Institutes of Health’s R&D budget will fall $325m (£166m, €247m) or 1.1 per cent, next year. “Funding conditions are forcing researchers to look outside their traditional boxes at places that they might not have looked at before – such as the Department of Homeland Security,” said Kei Koizumi, a director at the AAAS.

The DHS’s budget for R&D will dip slightly to $933m next year.

Some researchers are putting scientific questions in the context of security. Jeremy Wolfe, professor of ophthalmology at Harvard Medical School, who studies how the brain processes visual input, was granted $460,000 by the DHS. His lab will research why airport guards fail to notice items on scanner screens.

Prof Wolfe, who described himself as “comfortably funded by a combination of NIH and non-NIH entities”, said his research’s security emphasis would not harm its scientific integrity.

“I am dedicated to solving basic research problems. If as a part of that I can also be useful in an area like airport security, I don’t have any particular problem with that,” he said.

Scientists seeking money from the NIH and National Science Foundation have also turned to security. The NIH’s bio­defence research portfolio will total $1.8bn in fiscal 2008. This had caused some scientists to “tailor their research to fit this priority”, Mr Koizumi said.

Thomas Cech, president of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, said an over-emphasis on practical application could have a negative impact on future scientific discoveries, which are typically the result of basic rather than applied research.

“Some countries have gone heavily in this direction where research is funded based on [how it will] boost the nation’s economy, but the evidence has been that it stifles creativity and true breakthroughs,” he said. “I think it’s fine to have some portion of the nation’s funding focused on outcome, but it’s worrying if it becomes a major slice of the pie.”

Scientists have long sought funding from federal agencies, and researchers in all disciplines often follow the money trail. But some have voiced concern.

“Part of the strength of the US system is that we do have multiple sources of funding and people understand why defence and homeland security are a much more important priority than they were even five years ago. But there is a frustration because these priorities are not everyone’s priorities,” Mr Koizumi said.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007