Dan Froomkin: Fool Me Over and Over and Over Again

by Dan Froomkin, Niemanwatchdog.org

Our elite media has been repeatedly suckered into trumpeting glaringly unsupported assertions about the number of Guantanamo detainees that have “returned” to the battlefield. This was quite a week for it.

The most blatant and distressing previous object lesson came early last summer, when New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt appropriately spanked reporter Elisabeth Bumiller and her editors for a top-of-the-front-page story in late May that was “seriously flawed and greatly overplayed.” Hoyt wrote that the story, which appeared under the headline 1 in 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds “demonstrated again the dangers when editors run with exclusive leaked material in politically charged circumstances and fail to push back skeptically.”

Entirely by coincidence, of course, Bumiller’s article, based on a secret Pentagon report, provided a handy talking point for former vice president Cheney later that day, when he snarlingly attempted to rebut President Obama’s major address on national security speech later.

Bumiller’s reporting failure also earned her an editor’s note appended to her story, and a scolding op-ed.

And yet, amazingly enough, eight months later – now in the midst of attempts by Gitmo dead-enders to turn the aborted Exploding Christmas Underpants plot into a political cudgel – Bumiller is at it again, though this time chasing Bloomberg, et al., rather than leading the pack.

This time it’s one in five former detainees who have “engaged in, or is suspected of engaging in, terrorism or militant activity.” And here’s the sum total of what Bumiller learned from her previous experience:

Civil liberties and human rights groups sharply criticized the May 2009 report and earlier Pentagon reports during the Bush administration concluding that substantial numbers of former Guantánamo detainees had engaged in terrorism or militant activity. The groups said that the information was too vague to be credible and amounted to propaganda in favor of keeping the prison open.

But it’s not just that the Pentagon’s assertions are suspicious on their face. As it happens, a series of studies directed by Seton Hall Law Professor Mark Denbeaux has been effectively picking them apart for years. (A response to the latest spate of stories will be coming out on Monday.)

Among the other (little, inconsequential) things the Seton Hall reports have pointed out is that the Pentagon, in all the times it has leaked on the topic, has nevertheless consistently refused to provide names that would allow anyone to actually verify most of its claims. There’s the issue of how they define “returning to the fight” – it apparently includes detainees speaking out publicly against their incarceration. There’s the fact that officials, if you press them, acknowledge they don’t really track former detainees – so this is largely speculative. And there’s the specious use of the term “return” – given that most of the detainees who were released weren’t found on the battlefield in the first place and were never formally charged with anything.

From Denbeaux’s December 2007 report:

The Department of Defense has publicly insisted that “just short of 30” former Guantánamo detainees have “returned” to the battlefield… but to date the Department has described at most 15 possible recidivists, and has identified only seven of these individuals by name. According to the data provided by the Department of Defense.. at least eight of the 15 individuals alleged by the Government to have “returned to the fight” are accused of nothing more than speaking critically of the Government’s detention policies.

From his January 2009 report:

The Department of Defense does not keep track of released detainees nor does it follow their post release conduct.

Denbeaux calls this week’s outrageous Pentagon assertions the latest example of what he calls “numbers without names and trends without numbers.” He told me he’s outraged it’s been so widely picked up — including by the Times.

“I don’t see what the point is of a public editor criticizing a story for the New York Times if they’re going to republish it a year later,” he told me.

Gullible, amnesiac journalists are a dangerous thing. Is our profession really incapable of learning anything from its mistakes?

Newsmax removes column that called for military coup to resolve the ‘Obama problem.’

I don't know.. I thought promoting a military takeover from an elected U.S. President was actually treason, and goes a bit further than "freedom of speech". Funny thing, that Constitution. I'd say it approaches scary.. but it goes WAY past scary. It's treasonous.

From ThinkProgress, Sept. 30th, 2009

In a column published on the right-wing site Newsmax yesterday, John L. Perry writes that a military coup against President Obama is possible. Newsmax appears to have taken down the column from its website this morning. Media Matters has archived it, however:

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic. [...]

Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”

In his Washington Post column, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson acknowledges that “military leaders seem impressed” with President Obama’s decision-making process. “Obama’s engaged, deliberate style has fans in the military,” he writes.

Update Media Matters notes that Perry’s rhetoric is simply a continuation of “a trend of increasingly violent and revolutionary rhetoric advanced by conservative media figures.”

Update A spokeswoman for Newsmax sent a statement to TPM admitting that the magazine removed the column after several reader complaints:

Newsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions

Newsmax explains decision to take down coup column

Alex Koppelman, Salon.com

The conservative magazine Newsmax has sent over a statement explaining why it took down a column published on its Web site that appeared to suggest a military coup against President Obama.

The statement, which appears in full below, tries a couple of dodges to get Newsmax off the hook, and they don't quite succeed.

For one thing, the statement says that the column's author, John L. Perry, "clearly stated that he was not advocating [a coup] scenario but simply describing one." That's technically true -- Perry did write, "America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it." But in the context of the full column, that appears to be just an attempt to provide some sort of deniability. Later in the piece, Perry strayed towards advocating a coup, writing:

Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

The statement also tries to distance Newsmax from Perry, saying, "He has no official relationship with Newsmax other than as an unpaid blogger." That doesn't appear to be true -- his writings for the Web site are clearly in column and not blog form, and he's been contributing them for years. Plus, the author bio at the end of his articles describes him as "a regular columnist for Newsmax.com," and his official biography on the site says he "contributes a regular column to NewsMax.com."

By e-mail, Salon asked a spokeswoman for Newsmax how the description of Perry's relationship with the magazine fit with the information available on its site, and whether Newsmax would continue publishing his work. As of this post, she had not responded.

The full statement:

In a blog posting to Newsmax John Perry wrote about a coup scenario involving the U.S. military. He clearly stated that he was not advocating such a scenario but simply describing one.

After several reader complaints, Newsmax wanted to insure that this article was not misinterpreted. It was removed after a short period after being posted.

Newsmax strongly believes in the principles of Constitutional government and would never advocate or insinuate any suggestion of an activity that would undermine our democracy or democratic institutions.

Mr. Perry served as a political appointee in the Carter administration in HUD and FEMA. He has no official relationship with Newsmax other than as an unpaid blogger.

― Alex Koppelman

The Senate Brandishes a Gun at Amtrak

NOTE FROM GREETINGS: This is an utterly ridiculous stand from the Senate. And these are the same folks who keep "forecasting" a terrorist attack under Obama. Well, they're doing everything they can to help that along with this passage. Guns on trains in the heavily traveled Northeast Corridor? This is true insanity, thanks to the below-mentioned U.S. Senators. Look up the names and call their offices. Guns can NOT be sealed on a transportation system like Amtrak or U.S. buses. Would they let people carry them onto airplanes? How do they decide if someone CAN'T carry them on versus someone who CAN? This will show up as the act that helped create the next terrorist attack. And these names will be held responsible.

NY Times Editorial, Sept. 18, 2009

In a shocking genuflection to the gun lobby, the Senate has voted to deny Amtrak its indispensable $1.6 billion federal subsidy unless it allows passengers to transport handguns in their checked luggage. The budget support would be stripped in six months unless Amtrak scraps the gun ban that it wisely adopted five years ago after the terrorist railroad atrocities in Madrid.

The majority vote was bipartisan and not even close, with 27 Democrats and one independent (the ultraliberal Bernie Sanders from gun-friendly Vermont) joining all 40 Republicans versus 30 opponents. The hope is that the House or President Obama will ultimately reject the Amtrak measure, but security-wary citizens cannot count on that as the gun lobby choreographs political cravenness.

The budget cudgel was approved despite pleas from Amtrak that it lacks the manpower, equipment and extra financing to effectively meet the deadline and that it faces a shutdown if federal funds are lost. Among other changes, baggage cars would have to be securely retrofitted and manpower increased. The warning cut no ice with the majority as the chief sponsor, Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican of Mississippi, intoned a lock-step mantra: “Americans should not have their Second Amendment rights restricted for any reason.”

Proponents said the change was needed to put Amtrak back to its pre-9/11 gun policy and equate it with airline security measures that allow unloaded, locked handguns in checked baggage. This is lunatic reasoning for a nation supposedly sensitized by the 9/11 attacks. Why should gun owners be treated as privileged travelers?

Amtrak has none of the hermetic procedures where airport passengers are screened shoeless at detectors while their checked baggage is separately secured. Trains stop at stations and passengers come and go. Amtrak presently has a system of checking passengers and screening baggage at random, much the way New York police monitor mass transit.

If the Senate wants to pass a bill on Amtrak, it should provide the money to hire more security guards and create a real passenger rail system. Generally, it should just stop its demeaning homage to the gun lobby.

Senators Who Voted to Enable the Next Terrorist Attack (via Amtrak)

The following U.S. Senators voted Yes to allow guns on Amtrak passenger trains. Would you want them on airplanes now, too? Why yes on one and no on another?

Member	Party	State
Lamar Alexander	R	TN
John Barrasso	R	WY
Max Baucus	D	MT
Evan Bayh	D	IN
Mark Begich	D	AK
Michael Bennet	D	CO
Robert F. Bennett	R	UT
Jeff Bingaman	D	NM
Christopher S. Bond	R	MO
Sam Brownback	R	KS
Jim Bunning	R	KY
Richard M. Burr	R	NC
Bob Casey	D	PA
Saxby Chambliss	R	GA
Tom Coburn	R	OK
Thad Cochran	R	MS
Susan Collins	R	ME
Kent Conrad	D	ND
Bob Corker	R	TN
John Cornyn	R	TX
Michael D. Crapo	R	ID
Jim DeMint	R	SC
Byron L. Dorgan	D	ND
John Ensign	R	NV
Michael B. Enzi	R	WY
Russ Feingold	D	WI
Lindsey Graham	R	SC
Charles E. Grassley	R	IA
Judd Gregg	R	NH
Kay Hagan	D	NC
Orrin G. Hatch	R	UT
Kay Bailey Hutchison	R	TX
James M. Inhofe	R	OK
Johnny Isakson	R	GA
Mike Johanns	R	NE
Tim Johnson	D	SD
Amy Klobuchar	D	MN
Herb Kohl	D	WI
Jon Kyl	R	AZ
Mary L. Landrieu	D	LA
George S. LeMieux	R	FL
Patrick J. Leahy	D	VT
Blanche Lincoln	D	AR
Richard G. Lugar	R	IN
John McCain	R	AZ
Claire McCaskill	D	MO
Mitch McConnell	R	KY
Jeff Merkley	D	OR
Lisa Murkowski	R	AK
Bill Nelson	D	FL
Ben Nelson	D	NE
Harry Reid	D	NV
Jim Risch	R	ID
Pat Roberts	R	KS
Bernard Sanders	I	VT
Jeff Sessions	R	AL
Jeanne Shaheen	D	NH
Richard C. Shelby	R	AL
Olympia J. Snowe	R	ME
Jon Tester	D	MT
John Thune	R	SD
Mark Udall	D	CO
Tom Udall	D	NM
David Vitter	R	LA
George V. Voinovich	R	OH
Mark Warner	D	VA
Jim Webb	D	VA
Roger Wicker	R	MS

The U.S. Senators With Common Sense

These are the U.S. Senators who had enough common sense to vote "No" - to not allow guns on Amtrak Passenger trains. People who understand the consequences of the vote in terms of the potential for terrorist attacks.

No Votes (30)

Member	Party	State
Daniel K. Akaka	D	HI
Barbara Boxer	D	CA
Sherrod Brown	D	OH
Roland W. Burris	D	IL
Maria Cantwell	D	WA
Benjamin L. Cardin	D	MD
Thomas R. Carper	D	DE
Christopher J. Dodd	D	CT
Richard J. Durbin	D	IL
Dianne Feinstein	D	CA
Al Franken	D	MN
Kirsten Gillibrand	D	NY
Tom Harkin	D	IA
Daniel K. Inouye	D	HI
Edward E. Kaufman	D	DE
John Kerry	D	MA
Frank R. Lautenberg	D	NJ
Carl Levin	D	MI
Joseph I. Lieberman	ID	CT
Robert Menendez	D	NJ
Barbara A. Mikulski	D	MD
Patty Murray	D	WA
Mark Pryor	D	AR
Jack Reed	D	RI
John D. Rockefeller IV	D	WV
Charles E. Schumer	D	NY
Arlen Specter	D	PA
Debbie Stabenow	D	MI
Sheldon Whitehouse	D	RI
Ron Wyden	D	OR

Dave Davies: Student air passenger handcuffed to echoes of 9/11 fears

Let me know if Zappa predicted this in his interview above...

By Dave Davies
Philadelphia Daily News

EIGHT YEARS after 9/11, we're used to changes in our routines. We show ID to get into office buildings, and take off our shoes at airports.

But should a college student flying back to school be handcuffed and held for five hours because he has Arabic flash cards in his backpack?

That's the way Nick George, a senior at Pomona College, in California, sees what happened to him at the Philadelphia airport two Saturdays ago.

George, of Wyncote, Montgomery County, was about to catch a Southwest flight back to school when stereo speakers in his backpack caught the eye of screeners at the metal detector.

When they looked though his bag, George said, they found his Arabic/English flash cards, and escorted him to a side screening area.

He figures it didn't help that his passport had stamps from Jordan, where he'd studied a semester, and Egypt and Sudan, where he'd gone backpacking.

And among his 200 flash cards were words like "terrorist" and "explosion." He was learning to translate the Arabic-language news network Al Jazeera.

"I understand I might warrant a second look," George told me. "They should have taken me aside, seen I had a legitimate explanation and a student ID and that I was carrying nothing illegal, and waved me on."

They didn't.

George said that Transportation Security Administration officers kept him in the screening area for what seemed like 45 minutes. Eventually a woman from the TSA arrived and began asking more questions, like how he felt about 9/11.

"Do you know who did 9/11?" he said that the woman asked.

George said that he told her that it was Osama bin Laden, and that she responded smugly, "Do you know what language Osama bin Laden spoke?"

Soon after that a Philadelphia police officer arrived and told George to put his hands behind his back. Without explanation, he slapped handcuffs on him and led him away.

George was taken to the airport police station, where he was locked in a holding cell with the cuffs still on. I guess that's what you do with a high-value physics major.

George said that he tried to be a model prisoner, and after about two hours a police supervisor removed the handcuffs. After a couple of more hours two FBI agents appeared and took him to another room for questioning.

They were polite, George said, and asked why he studied Arabic, why he'd been in the Middle East, whether anyone had ever asked him to join a terrorist group, whether he was "Islamic," whether he'd joined any Islamic or Communist (yes, Communist) groups on campus.

"They told me their job is more an art than a science," George said. "They come in and decide whether there's a legitimate threat, and in my case, they decided I was not a threat."

So, many hours after his backpack entered the metal detector, George was released with a ticket to fly the next day, but without an apology or explanation.

If there's one thing we know that the government needs in the post-9/11 era, it's more college students interested in learning Arabic.

George feels that he was treated like a criminal because somebody didn't like the flash cards. He wasn't injured or psychologically scarred, just ticked off.

"I didn't have a weapon or anything seditious, just words on paper," George said. "As an American citizen, I think I'm allowed to learn a foreign language and have flash cards."

TSA spokeswoman Ann Davis tracked down a report on George's encounter, and said that it wasn't the flash cards that got him flagged.

Davis said that George had been selected for screening before he even reached the metal detector by TSA behavioral-detection officers, personnel trained to screen passengers for "involuntary physical and physiological reactions that people exhibit in response to a fear of being discovered."

Davis said that the report indicates that in the screening area, George's "behavior escalated to a point where our officers deemed it necessary to contact the Philadelphia Police Department."

Davis couldn't say what behavior had caught the officers' eye or what escalating behavior he exhibited. She said the report did note that George had Arabic flash cards, but "that's not why we would call law enforcement."

The police story is a little different.

Lt. Louis Liberati said, just as Davis did, that TSA personnel initially selected George because of something in his behavior.

But Liberati said that it was the stuff that the TSA found in George's backpack and wallet that really aroused their suspicion: the Arabic flash cards with troubling words, a card that had George's name and Arabic script, and the longer hair in George's driver's license and passport photos than his current clean-cut appearance.

That's "an indicator sometimes that somebody may have gone through a radicalization," Liberati explained.

Liberati said nothing about "escalating behavior." Liberati said police checked with the FBI, and the feds decided that they wanted to come and interview George.

I reached George, now back in school, and told him the authorities' version of the events.

He said that it's "crazy" to think that he was acting suspiciously in line or that he had exhibited "escalating behavior" while being questioned.

He insists that he patiently explained everything, including the card with Arabic writing - his student ID from Jordan - which he keeps as a souvenir.

"I never raised my voice," George said, "but I did ask once or twice how much longer this was going to take because my flight was about to leave."

Liberati also said that he's certain that George had not been left handcuffed in his cell.

George is equally certain that he was. His wallet was taken, and he remembers an officer coming into his cell to give him the $30 they'd found inside. The officer stuffed the money in his pocket, George said, and left with the cuffs still locked tight.

Our lives have changed since 9/11, and mistakes will happen. But when government personnel put an innocent person through something like this, it would be nice if someone offered an explanation, or showed just a touch of humanity.

Until then, check your flash cards with your luggage.

LNG tanker port would impact island lifestyle

Other papers and units need to cover this story. The little Jamestown Press is out at the forefront here. And the danger of exposure to RI and Mass. residents is shocking!

Editorial, Jamestown Press, August 20, 2009

The U.S. Coast Guard recently approved, in concept, a proposal to build a liquefied natural gas offl oading terminal in the middle of Mt. Hope Bay.

This latest plan, put forth by Weavers Cove Energy, would have 145-ft. wide LNG supertankers navigating the East Passage of Narragansett Bay to Mt. Hope Bay. The massive tankers would dock in the middle of the bay and pump their super-cooled cargo 4.2 miles through underground insulated piping to storage tanks in Fall River, Mass.

The Coast Guard had rejected an earlier plan that required the supertankers to make hairpin turns as they traveled up the Taunton River to Fall River.

This latest proposal, which has received the Coast Guard’s blessing (with conditions), would allow LNG supertankers to cruise past Conanicut Island some 70 times a year – more than once a week. To provide security against a possible terrorist attack, the Coast Guard would escort each supertanker up the bay with a two-mile moving exclusion zone surrounding the vessel. Each shipment of the highly volatile fuel would require that Narragansett Bay be closed to all normal boating traffic. In addition, the Pell Newport Bridge and the Mt. Hope Bridge would be closed while the tankers passed beneath.

Narragansett Bay is the boating capital of New England. These supertankers would frequently disrupt sailing regattas in the summer months. Bridge closings would delay emergency ambulance trips across the Pell Bridge. There could be economic impacts, such as a decline in property values, as well.

Of course, these disadvantages pale in comparison to the danger posed by a LNG supertanker. It has been estimated that should a LNG tanker leak and explode, everyone within a three-mile radius would be killed.

There is still time to be heard. Other agencies must approve the plan and public hearings will be held. We’ll keep you informed. In the meantime, write to our U.S. senators and representatives. They need to know how you feel about these LNG supertankers sailing past your home more than once a week.

— Jeff McDonough

Defining LNG Hazards on the Narragansett Bay

Note from Greetings: This is a followup letter from another group dealing with LNG tankers in their area. It's quite sobering, as was the Jamestown Press's initial story, which I will rerun. I can not imagine why any of our lawmakers will allow this to happen, nor the Coast Guard, nor the DEP. To quote the letter below: "The Weaver's Cove Terminal would severely impact property values; it would also present serious hazards. 1/3 of a mile from the explosion.. everyone would die. 1 mile from the ship - 2nd degree burns and asphyxiation potential (all within the range of Jamestown, Newport, Middletown, Portsmouth, Bristol, Fall River, and other population centers); 2.2 miles still presents an asphyxiation hazard and potential explosion hazards. (Moving past the bay into the other RI population centers, such as North Kingstown, East Greenwich, into Massachusetts and further north.) So... WHY is this even an option?

Jamestown Press, Letters to the Editor, Aug, 27, 2009

I just read your Aug. 20 editorial, “LNG tanker port would impact island lifestyle,” and thought I should mention some misunderstandings regarding LNG hazards.

I agree with your assessment that the Weaver’s Cove LNG terminal would severely disrupt activities on the water and impact property values. It would also present serious hazards; however, the comprehensiveness of the hazard mentioned in the editorial, I believe, is considerable but overstated.

While FERC considers the hazard zones (“zones of concern”) to extend just 2.2 miles from LNG ships, Dr. Jerry Havens, who developed the vapor dispersion hazard model, believes 3 miles is probably more accurate. Havens also has indicated that FERC and LNG developers improperly calculate LNG vapor impact zones. However, the 2.2- or 3-mile hazard zone does not mean everyone within that zone would be killed. There are three hazard zones: 1) 500 meters/one-third of a mile from the ship, 2) 1,600 meters/1- mile from the ship, and 3) 3,500 meters/2.2 miles from the ship. The hazard impacts would lessen with the increased distances of each zone.

Zone 1 presents the greatest hazards, where everyone would likely be killed by cryogenic temperatures, fire, explosion or asphyxiation.

Zone 2 presents a 30-second second-degree burn hazard to unprotected skin from a pool fire due to a conflagrated release at the ship. Confined vapor explosions, fire and asphyxiation could occur if combustion did not occur concurrently with the LNG release.

Zone 3 presents an explosion hazard from confined vapors, burn and fire hazard, and possibly an asphyxiation hazard.

In addition, actual impacts would probably not be symmetrical and would not entirely fill the areas of each of the hazard zones. The LNG vapors would likely be driven by wind, so the impacts would occur in relation to the wind direction and topography.

Another issue that may interest you is that the Weaver’s Cove Energy site violates world LNG industry terminal siting best practices. The Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO; www.SIGTTO. org) represents over 95 percent of the world’s LNG industry. They research and promulgate best practices. Their publication “Site Selection and Design for LNG Ports and Jetties” (available only in hard copy for around £30 via Witherby’s Seamanship International) clearly states that, for the health of the LNG industry, LNG terminals should not be sited where vapors from a large LNG release would affect civilian populations. They also state that LNG terminals should not be sited up long and winding inland waterways where navigation hazards are greater. Also, in another publication of best practices, they indicate terminals should not be sited where there are conflicting uses of the waterway – now and into the future. Weaver’s Cove Energy clearly violates these best practices (see my LNG Terminal Siting Standards Organization website: www.LNGTSS.org).

Unfortunately, the U.S. Coast Guard and FERC ignore SIGTTO. They justify this by stating SIGTTO is merely advice and not law. Paradoxically, the U.S. Coast Guard spends considerable energy advocating adherence to best practices when it comes to other navigation issues.

LNG-related zone terminology is frequently misunderstood. Exclusion zones refer exclusively to LNG terminals, and are intended to prevent burn/fire injury to civilians and civilian assets. LNG ships have moving safety and security zones intended to prevent LNG ships from colliding with other vessels and to prevent attack from other marine sources. Also, while it would seem to make sense that the three LNG ship hazard zones should protect the public equally as terminal exclusion zones, they are based on different parameters. Exclusion zones are much smaller than hazard zones. Exclusion zones are designed (generally) to prevent civilians from the impacts of an LNG release, while hazard zones are not prohibited from engulfi ng large civilian populations who could be killed or injured.

I hope this information is useful.
Robert Godfrey
Researcher and webmaster
Save Passamaquoddy Bay
3-Nation Alliance
Eastport, Maine

Anti-Terrorism Expert Praises New Film About LNG

Anti-terrorism expert gives high praises to new film, The Risks and Danger of LNG, and says, "The detail in your film of the dangers of LNG should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that we are facing a crisis when an LNG facility is sited in populated areas. It should be mandatory for every first responder to view this film." The LNG movie is now available at www.LngDANGER.com.

Colonel David Gavigan, a nationally and internationally recognized specialist in terrorism, has praised filmmakers Tim and Hayden Riley and their film, The Risks and Danger of LNG. Gavigan is a graduate of the Army War College, the chairman of Massachusetts Bristol County Homeland Security Task Force, a member of the U.S. Attorney's Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council (ATAC), Boston, MA, and is the military and terrorism analyst for FOX 25 TV, Boston.

"Let me start by congratulating you both on the outstanding DVD I just received entitled The Risks and Danger of LNG. This has to be an award winner. When I watched the film it gave me more insight into the dangers that communities face by the greed of large companies to site dangerous materials in populated areas. I feel that your work should set an example for others who wish to protect the public. The detail in your film of the dangers of LNG should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that we are facing a crisis when an LNG facility is sited in populated areas. It should be mandatory for every first responder to view this film," said Colonel Gavigan.

The film highlights the many hazards of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) tankers, facilities, and pipelines; and reveals LNG's vulnerability to accidental disaster, terrorism, and demonstrates how massive its destruction can be to our American communities.

The Risks and Danger of LNG was an Official Selection of the Malibu Film Festival, and had its World Premiere screening on September 18, 2004, at the festival.

"Naturally, we were honored that our film has been recognized as an official selection in the Malibu Film Festival, and the fact that it has received such meaningful praises from an anti-terrorist expert such as Colonel Gavigan, is additional validation of our film," said co-producer Tim Riley.

"We did not try to make a slick Hollywood popcorn movie, nor was a film festival even on our radar screen," says co-producer Hayden Riley, "We made the movie to provide vital information to all Americans about the real hazards of LNG by focusing on the actual risks and dangers of LNG which are routinely minimized by the energy industry, LNG proponents, LNG investors, political allies and their internet blogging friends."

"The energy industry and its friends don't like our film, and they don't want Americans to see it, because our film provides information they prefer you didn't know," says Tim Riley, who also co-wrote the film.

"We are at war with terrorism. Vice President Cheney recently mentioned a few times during his debate with Senator Edwards that he is concerned about a nuclear weapon being unleashed in one of our residential communities. Well, so are we, and that is why we warn Americans in our film, that a loaded LNG tanker has the energy equivalent of 55 Hiroshima bombs. Terrorists could unleash that tremendous amount of energy for mass destruction of an American community without the need of a nuclear weapon. LNG proponents dont like that we are alerting America to LNG's vulnerability to terrorism and compare its devastating power to its nuclear equivalent, however, we are not alone in that regard," said Tim Riley.

On September 21, 2004, The Providence Journal, in an article entitled, "Lloyd's Executive Likens LNG Attack to Nuclear Explosion," that paper reported that a Lloyd's of London Insurance executive likened an LNG attack to a nuclear explosion. "The assertion, which is contested by industry experts, was in a speech that the chairman, Peter Levene, delivered last night to business leaders in Houston."

"Gas carriers too, whether at sea or in ports, make obvious targets," said Levene. "Specialists reckon that a terrorist attack on an LNG tanker would have the force of a small nuclear explosion."

According to documentary co-writer Hayden Riley, "Not only will LNG endanger our residential communities and make them vulnerable to devastation by terrorist sabotage, it will make America's economy weaker by exporting more American dollars for more imported fossil fuel. It also makes Americas economy more vulnerable to energy market manipulation by the foreign energy nations of the Middle East and Pacific Rim. It is time for America to abandon its age old reliance on foreign fossil fuel, and it is now time to invest the same billions of dollars into America and American ingenuity, and create American jobs to develop safe renewable energy sources for Americas future."

The more people that see our movie and learn the truth about LNG, the safer the American public will be. LNG proponents label me a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) philosopher, well America is my backyard, so in a sense they are correct; however, the more appropriate label is NIABY - Not In America's Back Yard," said Tim Riley.

In the film the Rileys maintain, A sound, safe American energy plan requires solutions that make America stronger not weaker, make America more self-sufficient not more dependent, make America safer not more vulnerable, and make America fossil free not more polluted."

"We thank those on the front lines like Colonel Gavigan who are protecting America from terrorism, and we are grateful that he feels so strongly about our movie. His praises of our film are very meaningful," said Hayden Riley.

To preview a short trailer and to buy a DVD or VHS copy of the film, go to www.LngDanger.com .

Also visit the Riley's informational websites: http://TimRileyLaw.com and http://TimRileyLaw.com/LNG.htm

Jamestown officials outline LNG concerns

A NOTE FROM GREETINGS: This has no upside. One tanker explosions can cause the damage of 5 Hiroshima bombs, with a major bay being closed at will by a private corporation, with the aid of the U.S. Government. The areas of concern are (immediately) terrorism, in that it's near a naval base; area of a blast with such a large population on both sides of the bay; a major bridge to an island community closed when the tankers ferry up the bay; unannounced closings of the bay; the danger of the permanent storage facility inland to an even larger population, such as Providence; costs to local municipalities (who cannot afford it) of police escorts; the closing down of a vibrant bay community to business and recreation for all others.

By Phil Zahodiakin , Jamestown, RI Press, 09 13 09

As a long-standing proposal to ship liquefied natural gas (LNG) up the East Passage gains momentum, so does concern about potential disruptions in and around Jamestown. A recent Coast Guard conclusion that an LNG terminal would not pose navigational risks if it were sited in Mt. Hope Bay has increased the possibility that the project will win a federal permit.

Under the proposal from Weaver’s Cove Energy, LNG tankers would use the East Passage for the journey to the terminal, which would be built a mile from the Fall River shoreline. Whenever a loaded tanker steamed north, both the Pell and Mt. Hope bridges would have to be closed as the ships approached and departed.

“First and foremost are the safety concerns about the volatility of the cargo, and the risk of either an accident or terrorist activity that could ignite the ship, which would have devastating consequences for any nearby communities,” said Town Administrator Bruce Keiser.

“In addition to the safety issues,” Keiser said, “we are also concerned about [navigational prohibitions when loaded LNG tankers steam north] because the East Passage is very heavily trafficked by recreational boaters throughout the course of the summer, and any restrictions on the free and unfettered use of our waters is something that we strenuously object to. We don’t think those waters should be reserved for commercial interests, which would deprive recreational boaters of the opportunity to use the bay during our few short months of favorable boating weather.”

Moreover, due to security concerns, the schedule for LNG shipments would not be announced in advance – which means that long-planned events would inevitably be disrupted shortly before, or even after, they start. All loaded LNG tankers sailing through busy waters are surrounded by exclusion zones, which typically prohibit boat traffi c from coming any closer than a mile astern, two miles ahead and 1,000 feet to port and starboard.

Consequently, the flotilla of boats anchored off Ft. Adams during music festivals would presumably be ordered to immediately disperse if a LNG tanker was approaching the East Passage within 1,000 feet of the fort. In addition, “We have numerous sailing regattas during the course of the summer and they could be substantially curtailed or disrupted without notice,” Keiser said.

Dave Blydenburg, dockmaster for Conanicut Marine Services, is concerned about the exclusion zones as well. Providing a host of services to boaters in Jamestown harbor, Conanicut Marine also offers moorings, and Blydenburg suspects that the outer edge of exclusion zones established for Weaver’s Cove tankers “could cross our moorings.

“If they do,” Blydenburg said, “then anyone requesting a launch to bring them ashore would obviously have to wait out the tanker. But [the exclusion zones] could have other impacts [on recreational boaters]; for example, if someone was trying to duck into harbor ahead of a storm, and there was a tanker coming into the bay, they would have to wait, too. Or, if there were some emergency out in the passage while a tanker was passing, we wouldn’t be allowed to go out there.”

Blydenburg wondered if “the [Coast Guard] and [the Department of Environmental Management] will have the manpower to strictly enforce the exclusion zone.” However, all of the details involving security for LNG shipments passing through Narragansett Bay remain unknown. None has been publicly revealed, and all such information was redacted from the Coast Guard letter announcing its conclusions on an off-shore terminal.

Because the security details remain cloaked in secrecy, it was difficult for Jamestown Police Chief Thomas Tighe to predict the impacts of LNG shipments on his force. During Pell Bridge closures for shipments of compressed natural gas, “Basically, the state police comes in and closes the bridge while the tanker is passing below and we haven’t been asked to do anything other than assisting them with closing the bridge.”

Chief Tighe has had an opportunity to observe a LNG tanker steaming away from another U.S. port, and, during that visit, “The only security we were seeing was that the police from two communities would ride along the shoreline as close as they could to the water to make sure everything was okay. But, I haven’t seen any plans as to what would be entailed for our department and what kind of shoreline security they would ask for.”

Currently, the Jamestown police force has 15 officers, including the chief.

“At any given time, if no one is out sick, we have three people involved with our regular patrols: two cars and the dispatcher,” he said. Would the allocation of additional officers to shoreline security as many as four times a week place a significant personnel burden on the force? Chief Tighe declined to speculate because, he said, “I just don’t know what our role in shoreline security would be.”

Opportunities to comment on the LNG proposal

The next significant opportunity to comment on the Weaver’s Cove proposal for a LNG terminal in Mt. Hope Bay will come when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission publishes a draft environmental impact statement for the project. The EIS, which is expected in September, will be available at the e-library page of the FERC web site at http:// www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. To view public comments and other documents relating to the previous Weaver’s Cove proposal, go to the FERC site, click on “advanced search,” type “Weaver’s Cove” into “text search” and click submit.

Comments on the proposal can also be sent to members of the Rhode Island and Jamestown congressional delegation by calling or emailing Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, (202) 224-2921, http://whitehouse. senate.gov/contact/; Sen. Jack Reed, (202) 224-4642, http://reed.senate.gov/contact/contactshare. cfm or Rep. Patrick Kennedy (202) 225-4911, https://forms.house.gov/formpatrickkennedy/IMA/ contact.htm.

Clear-eyed conservative realism -- translated into English.