My heart is breaking

Three people died yesterday in a senseless act of violence.

Two of them were my comrades.

I didn't know them, I never met them, I never worked with them, I had never before heard of the hospital where they worked in service to their fellow man, but they made their living and died their deaths doing a thankless job that few people want and even fewer can do.

A 63-year-old man whose mother died while she was a patient in Doctors Hospital in Columbus, Georgia in 2004 armed himself with three handguns and went to the fifth floor of the hospital, the unit where his mother passed away, and started screaming "Where is he?" over and over. He wanted the floor nurse who had cared for his mother in her final days.

He found the nurse and shot him dead, after screaming at him that he was responsible for his mother's death. He then shot and mortally wounded another employee (the report linked says the other employee was an administrative assistant, but I would bet that victim was the unit clerk, because the only time you ever see AA's on the care floors, they are visiting relatives who are inpatients).

The man was able to exit the hospital and walk out the doors, where he shot another victim, a man who pulled up in a pickup truck. Thinking that the man in the pickup was trying to stop him, he shot him in the head, and he died later in surgery.

The shooter then exchanged gunfire with two different law enforcement officers; first with a deputy, then with a motorcycle officer who responded to the call for backup, but no one was hit. A detective in an unmarked car blocked his exit, and when the man shot at him, he stopped him with a shot to the right shoulder, and took him into custody.

Hospital security, apparently, never responded. He descended five flights and exited via the ER - where the security desk has been located in every freakin' hospital I have ever worked in.

Because his injury was not life threatening, he was taken to another facility for treatment and surgery.

He is now a patient, shackled to his bed, under guard and charged with three counts of murder.

I am doubly shaken up by this tragedy because I know what the two hospital employees he murdered in cold blood were feeling right before they died. Thirteen years ago, I had a gun stuck in my face before it was held to my head in an emergency room by a drug addict. (Wanna know what I was thinking? I thought "I'm glad I married a man who can finish raising our kids." Then I closed my eyes and waited, for what seemed like forever, but was really about two (of the longest) minutes (of my life.)

In my case, well-trained, professional hospital security personnel responded, and I am here to tell the tale.

What is fucked up is that my story is not that rare. We have all been attacked and threatened and a shockingly large number of those threats involve firearms.

I have seen way more gunplay in medical centers than I ever imagined I would when in training. I have been stuck at work for hours after my shift was over because the parking lot where my car was sitting was a crime scene. I have simultaneously run units from the bloodbank to the trauma bays for both the policeman with the sparkling eyes who had shamelessly flirted with all of us, who now lay dying in Bay 1; while the punk who shot him lay wounded in Bay 2. (Yes, I have first hand experience in how we are supposed to treat our enemies.)

The problem of workplace violence in hospitals became an issue about two years after I entered the workforce, in the mid-80's, and it has only gotten worse every year since. And yes, I retired last year, after 22, but that status may change again after Zoe goes to school and I get my spiffy new bionic knees. I have certainly never let my credentials lapse and I never will. Sixty-five is almost two decades down the road, after all.

The issue of hospital violence is severe enough that the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health issued a report in 2002 on strategies to train hospital personnel to recognize the signs of impending violence and how to defuse potentially violent situations.

And it's all well and good, so far as it goes. But it isn't going to do a damned thing about a person who is bent on murder most foul, on exacting that pound of flesh they are convinced that they are due.

That man was not going to be defused by any HR directors happy-talk.

It is high time we secure hospitals. Start by installing metal detectors and x-ray belts, and putting armed guards on every public entrance. We do it at courthouses and city halls and federal buildings throughout the land, so do it for hospitals, too. We already pretty much successfully lock 'em down after hours anyway. And it isn't like we don't know how to secure a unit. The Labor & Delivery floor is frequently about three levels more secure than Fort fucking Knox - especially in the suburbs.

There are things in hospitals worth protecting. Starting with the personnel - you are as likely to pull a registered nurse off the street as you are to find a bird Colonel walking into a recruiting station, you know. And I haven't even addressed the chemicals, radioactive isotopes and pharmaceuticals that are pretty damned lightly protected - as in a couple of skater punks with mace could knock over some suburban hospitals that don't want to offend their patients with too strenuous a security presence...except in labor and delivery.

Frankly, that hospitals haven't been secured - and that so few of us got proper training for biohazard response, but I digress - tells me all I need to know about how seriously these idiots don't take homeland security.

There's more: "My heart is breaking" >>

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"

Seriously, it is hard to shock me these days. Every day brings a new outrage. It has gotten to the point that I have been catching myself thinking like a conspiracy theorist, and I do not like that feeling. And I really hate that I might be right to be paranoid.

I happen to believe that government can benefit the citizens and that free people tend toward responsible governance. No “Invisible Hand” necessary, liberal applications of common sense and the rule of law served us quite well for over two centuries.

Then along came George.

A year ago, the Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007 was tweaked, and language was inserted into the bill that effectively suspended the Insurrection Acts of 1807 and Posse Comitatus. It went relatively unnoticed, with the exception of a few bloggers, but the day that bill was signed into law, the relationship ordinary citizens have with our government and our military changed fundamentally.

The Insurrection Acts of 1807 limited the power of the president to deploy the armed forces within the United States to act in a law enforcement capacity, and Posse Comitatus further refined and quantified the use of the military in the United States to enforce the law.

This bit of Federal Law is was the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the guise of law enforcement.

Posse Comitatus reads as follows:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

With a stroke of a pen on 16 October 2006, those two pillars of our republic were negated, and the ability of the president to declare martial law went from unthinkable to a horrifying possibility, while simultaneously the governors, all 50 of whom objected, lost command of their National Guard contingents when the act federalized the Guard.

The following text is from page 19 of the Defense Authorization act of 2007. (Emphasis is mine.)

Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies. Section 1042 would amend the Insurrection Act to make explicit the President’s authority to deploy the armed forces, including the National Guard, within the United States to restore order or enforce federal law after a major public emergency, such as a natural disaster, epidemic, or terrorist attack. Current practice, in a major public emergency, is for the governor or legislature of a state to request assistance from the federal government. The Federal Emergency Management Agency then organizes the federal government’s response to that request.

This provision would clarify the President’s authority to deploy the armed forces in response to public emergencies without first receiving a request from state authorities in cases where the President determines such action is necessary to restore public order or enforce federal law. This section also would authorize the President to direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by such an emergency. If this clarification would encourage the President to use the armed forces more frequently or more intensively than is the current practice, the potential cost could be significant. However, because CBO does not have a basis for determining the frequency of such emergencies or the magnitude of the potential involvement of the armed forces, CBO has no basis for predicting the potential cost of this section.

When the bill was being deliberated, exactly one Senator raised a note of protest over this egregious power grab. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont was the lone voice of dissent. On 29 September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." Leahy claimed that this provision had been "slipped in,as a rider with little study while other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals." Leahy went on "The implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous. There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty." (emphasis mine) Leahy finished his comments by wondering aloud how we got to this point. "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."

***************

Now, almost a year later, folks seem to be noticing. It might have had something to do with Michael Chertoff's stomach trouble. What ever it was that set the alarm bells ringing, it got the attention of the electorate in the Oregon-04, and they started calling their congressman, Peter Defazio, who holds a seat on the Homeland Security Committee.

Representative DeFazio, a populist Democrat, requested access to the secure "bubbleroom" in the capitol to review the contingency plans that the federal government has should a "public emergency" arise. initially, his request was approved, then inexplicably, DENIED.

"I just can't believe they're going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack," DeFazio says.

Homeland Security Committee staffers told his office that the White House initially approved his request, but it was later quashed. DeFazio doesn't know who did it or why.

"We're talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America," DeFazio says. "I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee."

Bush administration spokesman Trey Bohn declined to say why DeFazio was denied access: "We do not comment through the press on the process that this access entails. It is important to keep in mind that much of the information related to the continuity of government is highly sensitive."

This is the first time DeFazio has been denied access to documents. DeFazio has asked Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., to help him access the documents.

"Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right," DeFazio said.

Norman Ornstein sees it the same way Representative DeFazio and the voters of the Oregon-04 see it. Ornstein, said he "cannot think of one good reason" to deny access to a member of Congress who serves on the Homeland Security Committee. "I find it inexplicable and probably reflective of the usual, knee-jerk overextension of executive power that we see from this White House."

I have never been one for conspiracy theories. Trying to get enough people on the same page and sharing the same commitment to guarding/pushing the same agenda to pull off a worthy conspiracy borders on the impossible. But the obsessive/compulsive secrecy of this administration is enough to make even the most cynical among us think that there is malevolence most foul lurking just below the surface, just waiting for the opportunity to strike, and as bad as it pains me to say it, I would not put this particular crew of miscreants above making something happen if the prophetic gut is wrong. I absolutely hate saying this, but if an attack happened tomorrow, my first thought would be "false flag operation" and it would likely take a lot more than standard evidence to make me believe otherwise. And you have no idea how fiercely I resent even having thoughts like that.

There's more: ""Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"" >>

Homeland Security and KY Train Wrecks

The Department of Homeland Security, formed in response to the 9-11 attacks, has concentrated almost exclusively on the sexier aspects of its mandate -- terrorism and border protection -- while giving short shrift to the more mundane aspects of general disaster preparation. The two train derailments in Kentucky in the last two days show the cost of such short-sightedness.

Yesterday's wreck involved butyl acetate, which is a potent solvent. Today's wreck, 20 miles south of Louisville has thus far resulted in the following actions:

• A free-burning rail tanker car containing approx 30,000 gallons of propane, and 12-15 additional rail cars -- all burning -- containing a wide assortment of hazardous materials
• A mile-wide "no fly" zone established by the FAA (which is a very unusual response to a localized haz-mat incident)
• A one-mile evacuation of homes and businesses
• The decision by authorities to allow the fire to burn itself out (instead of mounting an aggressive suppression attack to extinguish it)
• Implementation of a state-wide emergency response plan on the part of state, county, and local governmental agencies and NGO's
• Several dozen civilians and responders hospitalized with respiratory complaints
• Release of hundreds of thousands of gallons of assorted hazardous materials into the atmosphere and/or groundwater
• The admission that the combination of materials may result in unanticipated short- and long-term complications
• Potentially significant financial losses (destroyed rail cars, fire damage to homes and infrastructure, business interruption, response and mitigation costs, etc.)

During an update on the news, various emergency response officials have said there was currently no idea how long the train cars would burn, nor how the hazardous materials involved would interact and the impact those interactions would have on subsequent mitigation efforts.

Safety and security professionals have been screaming for years about the sorry state of preparedness in the transportation sector. Yes, it is quite possible that al Qaeda might try to smuggle a "dirty bomb" into the United States in a shipping container, but -- once again -- we have seen that accidents are much more likely to happen and may create an equally large response need.

Yet the administration and DHS refuse to put sufficient time, effort, and resources into planning for the inevitable; rather, all effort is being directed to the relatively small chance of another major terror attack.

For example, the FY '07 budget for Rail and Transit Security grants has increased to $175 million, compared to the $770 million (up from $725 million in FY '04) for the High-Threat, High-Density Urban Area grant program (which is primarily terror-related). Preparedness funding was reduced by $14 million.

Other significant funding changes, with the first figure FY '04 and the second, FY '07:

• Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention: 500 M, 375 M
• Buffer Zone Protection: 91 M ('05, did not exist in '04), 50 M
• Trucking Security: 22 M, 12 M
• Metropolitan Medical Response System: 50 M, 33 M
• Technical Assistance: 30 M, 18 M
• Citizen Corps: 40 M, 15 M
• Assistance to Firefighters: 750 M, 662 M

Overall, funding for preparedness programs in general were reduced from $4.44 billion to $3.39 billion.

Although the administration attempted to further reduce funding for both Emergency Management Performance Grants and Firefighter Assistance Grants, both were quickly defended by Congress, in large part because of the "all-hazards" nature of the programs.

The FY '07 budget leaves FEMA within DHS. DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff said, "The bill wisely reinforces DHS' ability to operate as a comprehensive all hazards agency.... DHS can thereby enhance FEMA's ability to coordinate response and recovery efforts." Unfortunately, we've seen with Katrina just how effectively DHS -- with their emphasis on planning for the last attack -- was in enhancing response and recovery.

Yes, preparing for, and responding to, terrorism are important aspects of an overall homeland security program, but when will the administration realize that terrorism is not the only threat to the homeland?

It should be obvious that one of the priorities of the 110th Congress should be to take efficient, cost-effective steps to safeguard the American population, based on generally-accepted risk-assessment procedures.

After all, what if the Zoneton derailment had occurred twenty miles further north... in the middle of Lousiville?

There's more: "Homeland Security and KY Train Wrecks" >>

Homeland (In)Security

We've probably all heard by now of the administration's claim of "authority" to open US Mail addressed to American citizens, without a warrant, based on the "exigent circumstances" associated with the Global War on Terra. And of course we all remember The Great NSA Wiretap Brouhaha from last year.

We now know also that both the CIA and the Defense Department are accessing our personal credit and financial files, again as part of the GWOT.

And we all know that "enemy non-combatants" can be imprisoned, virtually indefinitely, without benefit of any Constitutional rights, and can be tortured by Americans, even if the "enemy" is himself American or one of our few remaining allies.

Now comes news, via the NY Times, that the Defense Dept has also changed their internal regulations on wiretapping Americans, from certification from the Attorney General "issued under the authority of" FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), to "upon attorney general authorization."

This may not seem like much of a difference, but the ten deleted words now leave the DoD free to wiretap Americans without any judicial oversight whatsoever... not even the meagre oversight "provided" by the FISA court (which is, in effect, a Court of Star Chamber for the administration).

Based on the news recently, it appears the administration is concentrating its "homeland security" efforts on building power for the "unitary executive", rather than on the common good.

No one will argue the necessity of properly securing our nation, protecting our citizens and critical infrastructure, and preventing terrorist acts (and, ideally, eliminating the terrorists themselves). I've been in law enforcement and security for the past thirty years; you'll get no argument from me (or any other security professional) that we have to tighten things up, for our own protection.

BUT -- and this is a big "but" -- we cannot do so at the cost of those freedoms which made America, America.

Now that Democrats once again have a say in the workings of government, it is critical that we rein in the abuses of freedom inflicted under the guise of "homeland security." The institutionalized fascism that is the current administration must be brought to heel.

In addition to all the other goals for the 110th Congress, we must urge our Representatives (and Senators) to increase the actual security of our nation -- by hardening or removing targets, by protecting water and food supplies, by strengthening inspections of cargo containers entering our ports -- and at the same time reduce the suppression of honest dissent and the oppression of the American people under spurious claims of "executive privilege", "national security", "homeland security" and "the war on terror."

I hope to be able to present information on "the state of homeland security" -- both as it is and as it should be -- along with how our elected officials plan to balance homeland security and personal freedoms.

There's more: "Homeland (In)Security" >>