Yesterday the latest issue Of Emerging Infectious Diseases came out. In it was an interesting article called Prophylaxis and Treatment of Pregnant Women for Emerging Infections and Bioterrorism Emergencies This article is a great overview on the current state of the art in using prophylatic treatment in pregnant women. For those who are unclear, prophylatic treatment is not aimed at curing a patient that is already sick. Its intent is to prevent exposed persons from becoming sick to begin with. This is often done with one of many medications. Such treatment is important because in a biological attack it may be days of weeks before symptoms appear. By that time available treatments may be much less effective. In addition each infected person then has the opportunity to infect untold numbers of other people before symptoms alert us to a potential problems.

Use of prophylaxis in pregnant women is hampered among other things by the lack of hard data. Because of ethical issues surrounding safety of the fetus, drug trials are not performed on pregnant women. The issue is also complicated by the nature of pregnancy itself. Hormones and other aspects of a pregnant woman's body are constantly in flux. The above article goes into much more detail on these and other concerns. Including is the simple fact that there is just so much that is not know about how a pregnant woman's body will react to the medications normally used in these situations.

In homeland security we may need to relook at our prophylaxis planing. It is likely that pregnant women may need more individualized prophylatic treatment as opposed to other segments of the impacted population.

We also need to plan for such decisions in advance, like everything else we may need to provide in an emergency. I urge you to read this article and others. Discuss them with your disaster medical team. Work through the logistics etc. before an emergency thrusts these decisions on you, and the people you protect.

Back on Thursday President Bush signed a bill authorizing 700 miles of fence along the U.S.- Mexico border. The new law also authorizes cameras, sensors, and other hight tech measures along that same border.

It should be very good news for those of us concerned with homeland security. However there's one big problem. The new law provides no money to make any of this happen ! Maybe congress will appropriate the needed funds later, maybe not. In the meanwhile it will remain way too easy for terrorists, or their supplies, communications etc. to join the flood of people crossing our borders in violation of our laws.

This game of authorize but not allocate funds is not a new game for congress. Both parties play it. Those of us who are leaders on homeland security related policy need to put an end to it !

Yesterday a judge in Ontario threw out the part of that country's anti-terrorism law that defines terrorism. Superior Court Judge Douglas Rutherford ruled that the part of the law limiting the definition of terrorism to acts involving "religion, politics, or ideaology" violated Canada's Charter of Rights. The rest of the law was left intact. Interestingly some of our neighbors to the north feel that this will actually make it easier to prosecute terrorism in Canada overall.

Why should we care ? One Canada is our neighbor across our entire northern border. Anything that impacts homeland security in Canada, at least indirectly impacts homeland security here.

But more than that, its a lesson in just how tricky it can be to craft legislation which protects both our rights and our safety. Granted Canada is a different country, with a somewhat different political system. However both our countries are democracies based on English Common Law, so the lessons learned are not completely irrelevant to us either.

I think this shows how criminal legislation, including that concerning homeland security should not be enacted in haste. In the public safety/ national security arena there is a natural push to do something, and do it now ! We must reign in this urge to act prematurely. Especially when it comes to homeland security we must be sure the needed criminal laws are enacted such that they will withstand review by the courts and the public.

So you think that defining terrorism is easier than this ? Schmidt and Youngman in their book POLITICAL TERRORISM cited 109 definitions of the term ! We have courts exactly because as I have said before "Any two honest, intelligent people will eventually disagree." We must work to ensure that when disagreements arise the safety of those we protect is not compromised in the process.

My point is this. Just as we should make the fullest use possible of lessons learned in other areas, lessons learned must become a part of enacting homeland security related criminal statutes. We can't just assume what hasn't worked elsewhere will work here. We are not the only democracy in the world, and homeland security does not stop at our national border. We must borrow from the experience of others. Not only will this give us stronger legislation, but make us safer and save us time as well.

Stay Vigilant !
Robert

I'm finishing up some training over the next few days. So posts to this blog may be frief and far between until around October 25th.

Robert

On October 9, 2006 in open defiance of previous United Nations Security Council resolutions conducted its first nuclear weapons test. On October 14th. the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1718 in response. This resolution called for a range of sanctions against North Korea. Less than a month earlier the U. S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a report entitled Recognizing North Korea as a Strategic Threat: An Intelligence Challenge for the United States to assess the threat. But does the UN's latest resolution make the United States, or any other part of the world safer ? Using the House Committee Report as a guide, I want to take a look at that question.

THREAT: Conventional Military

North Korea has an active duty military of over 1.2 million people, with 5 million more in reserve. The Resolution 1718 does forbid the sale of tanks and other heavy military goods to the North Koreans. So there is some help here if the sanctions can be effectively enforced, and this is a big if.

THREAT: Nuclear Weapons Program

This is the big one ! The Resolution 1718 was enacted specifically to counter this threat. Even if the resolution makes us safer in some ways, yet this threat continues the resolution will have failed. Sanctions passed include a ban on trade with North Korea in any materials, services, expertise than can be used to make a nuclear weapon. All nations are also required to ban travel by, and freeze financial assets of anyone connected to North Korea's nuclear program. However as in the above example, it remains to be seen if the sanctions can be effectively enforced.

THREAT:Chemical and Biological Weapons

Sanctions are also included in the resolution to counter this threat, particularly if delivered by ballistic missile. If anything the chemical and biological threat from North Korea is believed to be bigger than the nuclear one. Here too enforcement will be the key. Even though the resolution calls on all nations to board and inspect all ships entering or leaving North Korea, its a big ocean !

THREAT: North Korea as a Criminal Enterprise

The House report identifies North Korea as the only nation/state that could also be regarded as an ongoing criminal enterprise. There is wide evidence of their involvement in counterfeiting ( They are by far the world's largest source of so called "supernotes".) This alone puts the financial sector of every country in the world in danger. They are also believed to have been involved in kidnapping, and narcotics for many years. The resolution at best touches on the edge of these threats. While we are boarding ships looking for baned items we might accidentally stumble on something. However I don't find "might accidentally" very reassuring.

THREAT: North Korea as a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

The United States State Department has listed North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism for many years. The House report does not address this issue as a separate item. There is also little in the latest U.N. resolution that might counter this threat. To be fair Resolution 1718 is narrowly focused on the nuclear threat, and the Security Council was not asked to address any other threat formally. Its worth noting that terrorism is not likely to be conducted by the North Korean government directly.
This threat is probably conducted through various surrogate organizations. North Korea's role is in providing financial and other assistance to these surrogate groups. In my view this may well be the biggest threat to the U.S. homeland. Terrorist delivery of a nuclear device, as opposed to delivery by ballistic missile is more likely. It is also more in line with the size and weight of the device they are believed to have developed. There is little or no help in the resolution on this threat.

ARE WE SAFER ?

The North Koreans through their United Nations Ambassador immediately Resolution 1718. In fact their representative stormed out of the Security Council Chamber in protest. The success of most of the sanctions we were able to get through the Security Council are heavily dependent on the reluctant cooperation of nations such as Russia, and China. Success of the sanctions are also dependent on our ability to enforce them. Enforcement will take place from afar, including on the high seas. This will make enforcement challenging ! Personally I feel the increase in world peace, and safety will be minimal at best. In the worst case the sanctions will cause the North Korean government to fail, completely destabilizing an already fragile country. If this happens nobody really knows what will happen. If anything is scarier than North Korea with a nuclear device, its the thought of nobody knowing the location or having control over the nuclear devices the former North Korea used to have. The October 14th resolution may have a small positive effect. However North Korea is one of the biggest reasons this is a dangerous world, and this resolution by itself is too weak to change that.