Editorial: Domestic security needs help

Thursday, May 2, 2002 | 8:46 a.m.

In the wake of Sept. 11, President Bush has stepped up homeland security, producing an anti-terrorism plan that will cost $38 billion in the coming year. Much of the federal government's focus has been on taking measures to prevent a repeat of suicide hijackings, such as improving airline security. But this week the Brookings Institution, a prominent Washington-based research group, released a detailed analysis of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism plan and found a number of shortcomings.

The Brookings' scholars argue that not enough attention is being devoted to other potential dangers, including hazardous materials gaining entry into this country through uninspected cargo ships, bioterrorist attacks, the detonation of nuclear bombs in cities, and attacks against nuclear power plants and chemical factories. In short, Brookings makes a convincing argument that the Bush administration is fighting the "last war" instead of preparing for the next one. The administration should devote more money, the Brookings Institution advises, an effort that would require $45 billion to perform an adequate job.

Even when it comes to fighting the "last war," the federal government has some work to do. After the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, new security procedures were implemented at federal office buildings -- steps that were heightened after Sept. 11 -- but it's time for some refresher courses in security. Undercover congressional investigators recently were able to gain unauthorized entry into federal buildings in Atlanta because of security lapses. For example, investigators were able to get access to security badges and were able to get packages and briefcases past security checkpoints. In one of the worst instances, an investigator not only obtained two different security badges but he also obtained a guard's after-hours access code. The lapses in security found at the Atlanta federal buildings -- and it could be worse at other facil ities -- aren't acceptable.

The federal government must engage in a balancing act as it carries out its anti-terrorism plan, ensuring that the protections aren't so sweeping that they erode our liberties. In addition, not every structure or building can be made terrorist-proof -- it's just not realistic in a democracy. Still, the Bush administration should shore up the weak spots that have been identified -- terrorists always are looking for new targets and we need to stay one step ahead of them.