|
International News
Pakistan Battles Taliban (Washington Times; MSNBC) On May 1, “Pakistani troops backed by attack helicopters stepped up an operation to push the Taliban farther away from the capital,” reports the Associated Press. “… The army launched the drive to retake Buner, a poor, hilly region just 60 miles from Islamabad, on [April 28] after Taliban from the neighboring Swat Valley overran it under cover of a controversial peace pact.” Thousands of Pakistanis fled the region, reports the Associated Press in a separate story.
[View AP attack article] [View AP refugees article]
Taliban Funded With Swat Emeralds (New Kerala, India) “The money earned from mining and selling gemstones in [the] Swat and Shangla district[s] of Pakistan is used by the Taliban for terrorism, according to local entrepreneurs,” who “said that [the] Taliban had started extensive mining through hired labourers and were selling the precious stones in the black market,” reports Asian News International.
[View article]
Taliban Schools in Pakistan Teach Little but the Koran (New York Times) “With public education in a shambles, Pakistan’s poorest families have turned to madrasas, or Islamic schools, that feed and house the children while pushing a more militant brand of Islam than was traditional …” reports the New York Times. “The schools offer almost no instruction beyond the memorizing of the Koran.”
[View article]
Islamic Court Set Up in Pakistan (Washington Times) “The provincial government in Pakistan’s northwest announced the establishment of an Islamic court Saturday, meeting the main demand of the Taliban,” reports the Washington Times.
[View article]
Britain Increases Antiterror Aid to Pakistan (London Guardian) “Britain is stepping up its military and intelligence presence in Pakistan to help in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaida,” reports the Guardian. “… About 20 ‘military advisers’ will liaise with the Pakistani army and particularly with the Frontier Corps, an ethnic Pashtun paramilitary force on the frontline of the battle with the Taliban. Britain will also increase the number of intelligence officers in Pakistan, according to the officials, increasing an already large MI6 presence in the country. MI5 is also in the country investigating links to suspected terrorist plotters in Britain.”
[View article]
Canadian Pleads Guilty in Terror Trial (Toronto Star) Saad Khalid, 22, of Mississauga, Ontario, “has pleaded guilty to intending to cause an explosion, the first time a member of the so-called Toronto 18 group has admitted the existence of a bomb plot,” reports the Star. Last year, “prosecutors alleged some of the group’s members were planning to bomb sites such as the Toronto Stock Exchange, [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] headquarters in Ottawa, the Pickering nuclear power station and the Toronto offices of Canada’s spy agency … Khalid was charged with knowingly participating in a terrorist group, receiving training for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a terrorist group and doing anything with ‘intent to cause an explosion of an explosive substance that was likely to cause serious bodily harm or death.’”
[View article]
UK Lists Visitors Not Welcome (BBC) “The names of some of the people barred from entering the [United Kingdom] for fostering extremism or hatred have been published for the first time,” reports the British Broadcasting Corporation. “Islamic extremists, white supremacists and a US radio host [Michael Savage] are among the 16 of 22 excluded.”
[View article]
Math Model Can Help Spot Terrorism, Say Japanese Researchers (United Press International) Japanese scientists Yoshiharu Maeno and Yukio Ohsawa “say they have used graph theory and computational data processing to create a technique that can help identify potential terrorists,” reports UPI. They “used their new technique to analyze the terrorist network responsible for Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. They said they discovered connections among terrorists that had not been apparent to security experts.… The mathematical technique is detailed in the International Journal of Services Sciences.”
[View article]
National News
Almost 900 U.S. Swine Flu Cases, Two Deaths (Washington Times) As of 11 a.m. yesterday, there were 896 confirmed U.S. cases of swine flu, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, up from 109 last week (see last week’s newsletter). Two U.S. fatalities were the only deaths outside Mexico, which has “42 confirmed swine flu deaths,” reports the Washington Times—versus 168 suspected last week. The CDC “expects that more cases, more hospitalizations and more deaths from this outbreak will occur over the coming days and weeks.”
[View Times article] [View CDC swine flu web page]
Federal News
FBI Slow to Update Watch List (Washington Times) “The FBI’s terrorist watch list is so flawed that at least 10 people who should have been kept out of the United States”—or at least people with the same names—“were allowed to cross its borders,” reports the Washington Times, citing a new report by “Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn A. Fine,” which “concluded that the bureau also was slow to remove names that should not have been on the list.” Of the names that were audited, “more than one-third were outdated.” (See the Statistics of the Week.)
[View article]
CIA Lawyer Says He Warned Against Torture (Washington Times) “The top CIA lawyer in charge of overseeing the agency’s interrogation program after Sept. 11”—Jonathan Fredman, “who was chief legal counsel at the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center through April 2004”—“says his stance on certain harsh techniques was misrepresented in a Senate hearing [see the April 24 newsletter] and that he actually told Guantanamo Bay officials to be careful, warning that some tactics could violate international protocols,” reports the Washington Times. “In a Nov. 18 letter to senators on the Armed Services Committee … Fredman said he was trying to tell top Guantanamo officials that legal uncertainties surrounding the word ‘torture’ meant that interrogators needed clear and specific guidance rather than having to figure it out themselves in individual cases.”
[View article]
Federal Agencies Not Implementing Cyber-Security Most federal “agencies have not implemented controls to sufficiently prevent, limit, or detect access to computer networks, systems, and information, and weaknesses were reported in such controls at 23 of 24 major agencies for fiscal year 2008,” according to the Government Accountability Office. (See the Quote of the Week.)
[View GAO summary]
Air Traffic Control Is Open to Cyber-Attack, Says Transportation Dept. (Government Computer News) “The Federal Aviation Administration’s air traffic control system is vulnerable to cyberattacks via Web applications that support the system, according to a new report released by the Transportation Department’s” Inspector General, reports Government Computer News. “… The satellite-based air traffic control system is heavily reliant on commercial software and” technology based on Internet Protocol. Cyber “‘attacks that do serious harm [are] a matter of when, not if …’ wrote Rebecca Leng, [the department’s] assistant inspector general for financial and information technology audits.”
[View article]
Country Reports on Terrorism 2008 The State Department last week released its Country Reports on Terrorism 2008. “Al-Qaida and al-Qaida associated networks remain the greatest terrorist threat to the U.S. and to its partners,” said Ronald Schlicher, the department’s
Acting Coordinator for Counterterrorism, in a briefing announcing the reports’ publication.
[View briefing] [View reports]
|
| APHIS photo |
| F |
 |
CUS |
|
| on Animal ID |
ID tags and microchips for animals are growing common for two reasons: pet owners can be reunited with their lost animals, and governments can trace diseased livestock.
However, farm animals too may be separated from their owners by a disaster, and the American Veterinary Medical Association recommends “having identification on” animals, “including rabies and license tags, if applicable.” The ID can help reunite animals and owners after a disaster or evacuation.
Livestock identification systems are mostly voluntary but increasingly mandated by state and national governments, whereas inclusion of pets in disaster plans is a government response to public reluctance to leave animals behind.
Hurricane Gustav in 2008 was “the first time in history that pets” were “a priority in an evacuation,” Ana Zorrilla, chief executive officer of the Louisiana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, told National Geographic News. “Thousands of pets accompanied the estimated two million people who fled inland from the U.S. Gulf Coast,” wrote Maryann Mott in National Geographic News. “… pets from New Orleans” were “sent from a huge shelter at the Shreveport, Louisiana, fairgrounds back” to the Louisiana SPCA for owners to retrieve them. In the “evacuation during hurricane Gustav, pet owners that had pet id cards were processed faster and were able to board the buses faster,” according to the National Pet Identification Registry, a volunteer group that for a fee of $15 enrolls pets in a database to help reunite owners with lost or stolen pets. The registry provides laminated pet ID cards for pet owners.
Livestock registry is also growing, thanks to government programs around the world.
Taiwan has ordered 5,000 low-frequency radio-frequency (RFID) Pet Recovery Microchips, part of a “commitment of 100,000 chips per year as well as 1,000 [card] readers per year,” according to the contractor, Advanced ID Corporation. “… Taiwan has taken the position that pet microchipping is critical to the overall safety of domestic pets.”
Livestock tracking is motivated by different concerns. Over the past few decades, governments have introduced animal-tracing systems in order to halt the spread of disease by finding animals that have had contact with a diseased one.
“In the 1960s Australia introduced a cattle-tracing system as a means to assist the bovine Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign,” according to Meat & Livestock Australia. “… The system was based on a unique identification number”— a Property Identification Code—“that was aligned to each farm … All Australian states introduced legislation that underpinned the use of the” Property Identification Code. Australia’s current National Livestock Identification System “uses machine-readable” RFID “devices to identify cattle.”
Canada has mandatory individual livestock identification using RFID—“one national, seamless tagging system … for dairy animals for the whole of Canada,” according to National Livestock Identification for Dairy. “… all newborn animals—male and female—are tagged with the same system.”
New Zealand has National Animal Identification and Tracing, which “links people, property and animals,” according to the government website. It “will keep track of where farmed animals are and where they have been.” It is being managed by a partnership between industry and government. It “is planned to be fully operational in 2010 and from mid 2011 it is expected to be mandatory for cattle and deer, with other species to follow if required.… Cattle and deer are the first focus because they are already included in mandatory animal identification schemes under the National Bovine Tuberculosis Pest Management Strategy.”
“Uruguay has had an individual traceability system for exports to” the European Union “since 2001,” according to Meat & Livestock Australia. Uruguay decided to test an improved system involving “double tagging of cattle (a visual tag and an electronic tag), and recording of movements on a central database.” Brazil too tracks individual animals.
Taiwan has a pig-tagging and traceability project using ultra–high frequency ear tags, according to Advanced ID. Taiwan may purchase up to 8 million tags per year.
Japan identifies individual animals throughout the supply chain, and it has stringent beef import requirements. “Following the discovery of a [U.S.] cow testing positive for” bovine spongiform encephalitis (“mad cow disease”) in 2003, “over 40 export markets for U.S. beef closed,” according to John D. Lawrence, Professor and Director of the Iowa Beef Center at Iowa State University. “The largest of these, Japan, represented 34% of U.S. beef exports and approximately 3% of total U.S. beef production.” (The ban was lifted in 2006.) “… The specific product requirements for the Export Verification Programs differ by country, but most have followed the World Organization for Animal Health … Japan has chosen a different standard.”
The European Union has a pet passport and is developing the Animal Diseases Information System compatible with the World Organization for Animal Health system. However, “British and Irish lawmakers in the European Parliament” along with French sheep farmers have opposed “a rule that would make electronic tags for millions of sheep and goats across the [European Union] compulsory …” reported Reuters. “‘The idea that 33 million sheep in Britain will be tagged by January 2010, it’s frankly not going to happen.…’ said UK Conservative [Member of the European Parliament] Neil Parish, also chairman of the Parliament’s agriculture committee.”
In the United States, the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) has created significant opposition too. The system “is a modern, streamlined information system that helps producers and animal health officials respond quickly and effectively to animal disease events in the United States,” according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The system “is designed to” increase U.S. “disease response capabilities,” “limit the spread of animal diseases,” “minimize animal losses and economic impact,” “protect producers’ livelihoods,” and “maintain market access.”
And it has “has sparked the most severe political backlash rural America has seen in decades,” wrote David Gumpert and William Pentland in The Nation. “The controversy stems primarily from the backhanded way the government has imposed a deeply unpopular policy. By introducing NAIS as regulatory changes, the USDA has short-circuited the democratic processes designed to protect the public from government overreaching. Congress has never debated NAIS, and few elected officials have been held accountable for its consequences. The USDA has backed off the original plan to make NAIS mandatory and … now describes the program as ‘voluntary.’”
NAIS has three phases: free, voluntary premises registration; animal identification tagging (by individual animal or, if animals move through the supply chain as a group, by lot); and tracing by means of a database. Only animals that never leave the farm are exempt.
“When a disease outbreak occurs, animal health officials need to know … Which animals are involved … Where the infected animals are … What other animals might have been exposed to the disease,” says the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
But a Government Accountability Office “report said NAIS may not be able to achieve its stated purpose, largely because the USDA has raced to implement a system larger and more ambitious than any other in the world,” wrote Gumpert and Pentland.
“This system works in favor of multinational corporations that want to produce animal products in least-cost locations and sell them in wealthier countries,” asserts the group NoNAIS. For example, large agricultural businesses can avoid the expense of tagging individual animals if a whole herd or flock is raised and slaughtered as a group. Small farms that sell individual animals will have to tag each one. The Illinois Department of Agriculture says that the system is the result of “a concerted industry led effort.”
“A consortium of industry leaders—Cargill Meat Solutions, Monsanto and Schering-Plough, among others—pushed for NAIS for more than a decade …” wrote Gumpert and Pentland. “The consortium, the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA), designed NAIS for the USDA.”
“Being able to guarantee in the global marketplace that American farmers can quickly track disease ‘is a desirable factor with some of our trading partners, certainly in the Japanese export market,’” wrote Gumpert and Pentland, quoting Bruce Knight, Agriculture Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
“A great confluence of interests is behind this thing,” they quoted attorney Karin Bergener as saying, and “nobody outside of those groups is involved in the decision-making.”
Although serving national and commercial interests, the National Animal Identification System is “implemented primarily at the State and Tribal level[s],” says the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and at the state level, the system is not necessarily voluntary. Although Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, and Utah have passed laws to keep participation voluntary, and “the registered brand is the basis for animal identification in New Mexico,” other states have mandated participation: Indiana requires “identification for all sites associated with the purchase, sale, or exhibition of livestock”; in Iowa, “Premises Identification Numbers (PINs) are necessary for any location involved in livestock commerce or the movement of animals or poultry”; in Michigan, “cattle, of all ages, must be identified with an official radio frequency identification (RFID) ear tag prior to movement from a Michigan premises,” and “producers must have premises registered with the Michigan Department of Agriculture to order tags”; Wisconsin has required premises registration since 2004.
Other states indicate that the system may not remain voluntary: Illinois acknowledges “the current voluntary status” of NAIS but indicates that “all livestock premises need to be registered.” Colorado and Hawaii say that participation is voluntary “at this time.” The Kansas Animal Health Department says, “The program is voluntary but may eventually become mandatory.”
Hazards created by changes in animal husbandry may also be driving these mandates for animal registration and tracing. Mother Earth News pointed to what “the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology said in a 2005 report [‘Global Risks of Infectious Animal Diseases’] tracing the transition of livestock production from family farms to industrial confinement: ‘A major impact of modern intensive production systems is that they allow the rapid selection and amplification of pathogens.’” “Because of the Livestock Revolution,” said the council’s report, “global risks of disease are increasing.”
Sources
“About NAIS,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, March 31, 2009
“Advanced ID Continues Its Asian Expansion Into Taiwan,” Advanced ID Corporation press release, Aug. 19, 2008
American Veterinary Medical Association, “Animal Health,” 2009
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service state contact list, May 7, 2009
Peg Boyles, “Animal Disaster Planning,” Journal of Homeland Security, April 2003
Dan Buskirk, “Michigan Animal Identification System: Update,” March 21, 2007 (10.4MB PowerPoint file)
Colorado Department of Agriculture, “Colorado Animal ID,” frequently asked questions
“EU Lawmakers Open Battle Against Sheep, Goat Tags,” Reuters, Sep. 2, 2008
European Union Pet Passport Q&A page
David E. Gumpert and William Pentland, “USDA Bets the Farm on Animal ID Program,” The Nation, Dec. 14, 2007
“Frequently Asked Questions About Premise[s] Identification for 4-Hers,” Indiana State Board of Animal Health (31KB PDF)
Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Hawaii Animal Premises Identification System
“History of Livestock Identification and Traceability,” Meat & Livestock Australia, July 3, 2006
“Iowa Premise[s] Identification Program,” Iowa Animal Industry Bureau, Feb. 18, 2009
Kansas Animal Health Department, “What We Do,” 2009
John D. Lawrence, “Age Verification for Japan: What Is Involved and Is It Right for Me?” Western Extension Marketing Committee, Animal Identification, summer 2006
Maryann Mott, “Gustav Pet Evacuations Show Katrina Lessons Learned,” National Geographic News, Sep. 2, 2008
“NAIS Facts and Myths,” Illinois Department of Agriculture, March 2006 (34KB PDF)
“National Animal Identification System: USDA Needs to Resolve Several Key Implementation Issues to Achieve Rapid and Effective Disease Traceback,” Government Accountability Office, report to the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, July 2007 (3.7MB PDF)
National Livestock Identification for Dairy (Canada)
“National Livestock Identification System in Australia,” Meat & Livestock Australia, Nov. 23, 2007
National Animal Identification and Tracing, New Zealand, 2009
National Pet Identification Registry, 2007
NoNAIS.org
New Mexico Livestock Board Position on Animal ID
“New York Animal Health Information System: Facts and Myths,” New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (162KB PDF)
“Threat Prevention, Surveillance and Emergency Preparedness,” European Commission, Animal Health and Welfare, Oct. 9, 2008
“The Truth About the National Animal Identification System,” Mother Earth News, Feb. 1, 2008
Walter Jeffries, “Zanoni at Farmers’ Research Circle,” NoNAIS, March 4, 2009
|
|
Education
The Homeland Security Studies & Analysis Institute lists these education programs as a service to readers who may be interested; it does not endorse them or
their courses. New education listings are posted for four weeks.
Bioterrorism Preparedness for the Sentinel Laboratory (May 20; Jackson, MS) This intermediate-level hands-on workshop will provide an overview of the sentinel clinical laboratory’s role in presumptive identification of primary agents of bioterrorism. Participants will learn about the Laboratory Response Network and sentinel laboratory protocols for ruling out suspect agents. Laboratory demonstrations will outline the microbiology of these agents so that participants can recognize the culture, staining, and biochemical characteristics. The safety implications of handling suspected pathogens in clinical isolates and culture will be emphasized. [View class website]
Introduction to Terrorism & CBRNE (May 28-29; Arlington, VA) This workshop will discuss terrorist groups, their methodologies, the threat they pose, and the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive weapons at their disposal. It is designed as a primer for those working in or around possible targets such as large office complexes, schools, industries, transportation centers, government centers, convention centers, stadiums, shopping centers, tourist attractions, amusement parks, fairs, festivals, or other venues expected to attract large crowds. [View class website]
Congress and Homeland Security (June 8-11; Washington, DC) This course is designed for personnel from the Department of Homeland Security and from any other department, agency, or organization with an interest in Congress and homeland security issues.
Its purpose is to increase participants’ understanding of Congress’s role in the oversight of the Homeland Security Department and in Congress’s interactions with other departments and agencies with respect to homeland security issues.
[View class website]
Incident Management for First Responders in Different Cultures (June 16-17; Arlington, VA) This workshop provides first responders with techniques and strategies to safely handle crises involving or caused by cross-cultural or racial conflicts and to manage and avoid escalating dangerous circumstances such as riots, demonstrations, domestic violence, and neighborhood conflicts involving people from different backgrounds. It will discuss real-life dangerous situations with different cultures. Attendees will get to practice their skills during simulations.
[View class website]
Emergency Capabilities Analysis Workshop (June 19; Arlington, VA) This workshop aims to equip state and local government emergency managers to examine in detail their community’s readiness for emergencies and allow a systematic examination of resources, technology, equipment, and other factors needed for effective response. It also aims to help communities identify areas where preparedness and mitigation efforts may be useful and give senior leaders an assessment of actual emergency response under controlled conditions.
[View class website]
All-Hazards Regional Evacuation Plans (June 23-24; Arlington, VA) The workshop will walk participants through the regional planning process. Using proven planning methodologies, it will guide participants in creating sound strategies for a variety of catastrophes, both natural and man-made.
[View class website]
Best Practices for Disaster Communications (July 15; Arlington, VA) The workshop will look at some of the best practices being deployed for establishing and implementing emergency communications during disasters. It also will review the newly released all-hazards Type III Communications Unit Leader training and certification program and development of the all-hazards Communications Technician Radio Operator, and Communications Center Manager courses and programs that are compliant with the National Incident Management System and Incident Command System.
[View class website]
|
|
New Upcoming Events
(Events are listed for four weeks; after that, they are still on the Upcoming Events page)
Homeland Security Innovation Conference (May 19-21; Charleston, SC) The theme of this 5th annual conference, hosted by the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, is “Cyber Terrorism: Threats and Solutions of a Net Enabled Nation.”
[View event website]
U.S. Public Health Service Scientific and Training Symposium (June 1-4; Atlanta) The theme for the 2009 symposium is “Leading a Strong Public Health Workforce for a Healthy America.” The conference will address a broad range of emerging trends, research breakthroughs, and critical issues in public health. The symposium helps attendees stay current on emerging preparedness challenges, evolving best practices in prevention and care strategies for fundamental public health concerns, ethics, leadership, and much more.
[View event website]
Sensors Expo & Conference (June 1-8; Rosemont, IL) The in-depth 18-track conference program features the world’s leading authorities, who will examine the most up-to-date innovations in measurement and detection.
[View event website]
Chemical Biological Executive Roundtable Breakfast (June 3; Arlington, VA) S. Elizabeth George, Director of the Chemical and Biological Division in the Homeland Security Department’s Science & Technology Directorate, will speak.
[View event website]
(June 15-17; Washington, DC) The conference will discuss current countermeasure research, development, and procurement programs and give participants the chance to interact face to face with high-level government representatives tasked to build the country’s biodefense and pandemic influenza capacity.
[View event website]
National Environmental Health Association Conference & Exhibition (June 21-24; Atlanta) The conference will explore the evolution of the environmental health profession, address present concerns and future issues, and start to pave new avenues to ensure the positive growth of the profession. It will cover environmental health in climate change, built communities, sustainable development, and all-hazards preparedness; food safety; and where environmental health fits into the “New Government Structure.”
[View event website]
Emergency Planning & Response Conference (August 6-9; Kansas City, MO) This year’s conference will feature four tracks designed for decision makers and first responders in the emergency industry:
- Health and Medical
- Homeland Security/Emergency Management
- Technology
- Enhanced Local Emergency Planning Committees
[View event website]
This year’s conference features an expanded educational program, with tracks focusing on leadership, fiscal management, safety, and much more; the Company Officer Leadership Symposium Level 3;
the Solutions Showcase, featuring key products and solutions; and a new technology pavilion on the expo floor.
[View event website]
|
|
