Washington Navy Shipyard: Death, Security, and Voices

What happened at the Washington Navy Shipyard yesterday morning is starting to look less like a terrorist attack, and more like what the CDC calls workplace violence:

• "Occupational Violence"
  Workplace Safety & Health Topics;
  The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH);
  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

After killing a dozen people, Aaron Alexis was killed in a confrontation with authorities. Families are mourning their dead, law enforcement and national security outfits are working at sorting out what happened and why, and journalists are cranking out copy for news services.¹

News and Views

I don't have a boss and a deadline, for which I'm duly grateful. I suspect that many reporters aren't as daft as their work suggests.

When your job depends on submitting a fixed number of words in less than enough time, researching a story could be difficult. Add to that the knowledge that editors expect to see 'proof' that whatever happened supports their preferred reality: I'm glad I'm not a journalist.

Happily, we no longer depend on old-school information gatekeepers. And that's another topic. (August 14, 2009)

I won't pretend to be "unbiased" in the sense of having underlying set of assumptions about reality. I do, however, try to distinguish between facts and assumptions. More topics.

He Heard Voices

It's possible that someone used Aaron Alexis, exploiting his reported mental problems. The Associated Press says he'd been treated for paranoia, had trouble sleeping and heard voices in his head. Someone like that could be encouraged to act against his own best interests.

Someone may be trying to convince others that Aaron Alexis was sent by the CIA, Big Oil, Al Qaeda, or lizard men. I don't think so, but I'm one of those folks who enjoy conspiracy theories in fiction: not as a basis for public policy

Applying Occam's Razor, I think it's much more likely that Aaron Alexis acted alone.

On the other hand, I hope that investigators are looking very carefully at Mr. Alexis' life, particularly the last few years. I don't think lizard men are behind those deaths: but as I said, someone could have used Aaron Alexis as a weapon.

Security

Aaron Alexis almost certainly got into one building using an employee pass, but had to shoot his way into another. The pass he apparently used was either his own, or one he shouldn't have had.

I've seen both possibilities reported as facts. Like I said, I don't have a boss and editors telling me what to write: so I don't know if he had a pass, and if so whose it was.

Either way, he shouldn't have been able to get onto a naval base with those weapons. Apparently employees don't have to go through a metal detector on their way in. That may have saved some money, and kept "privacy advocates" happy: but in this case it was a lethal oversight.

After what happened yesterday, it's obvious that Mr. Alexis shouldn't have been allowed into the Washington Naval Shipyard yesterday. He probably shouldn't have been allowed to get a job with a subcontractor that brought him to the base in the first place.

That's obvious today. How obvious it would have been when he was hired: I don't know.

Mr. Alexis' general discharge from the Navy was upgraded to an honorable discharge because there wasn't enough evidence backing up misconduct charges. Maybe the charges were bogus, and he really is a victim of discrimination: maybe not. I don't know.

However, if half of what's been reported about his background is accurate, Aaron Alexis shouldn't have been given clearance to work on computer upgrades at a major military base. With my background, I probably wouldn't get that sort of clearance: even if I had the necessary skills.

Computers, Guns, and Keeping Up

Since Aaron Alexis was working with The Experts on a computer upgrade, it's possible that he had the skills and access necessary to provide himself with a valid-looking employee pass that he shouldn't have had. If that's the case, The Experts, Hewlett Packard and the Pentagon should take a hard look at their security.

We use technology today that was literally science fiction in my youth. Thanks to my eclectic job history, I've kept up with most of the major developments. Folks my age, whose successful career paths led them to positions of importance? I'm not sure that some of them really understand the Information Age. Still more topics.

Unlike some of my contemporaries, I like tech: and think that people use tools to do things, not the other way around.

Technology and Free Will

I don't think guns made a sleep-deprive paranoiac kill a dozen people. Human beings were quite capable of acting badly for uncounted ages before firearms, and I think we'll continue to be trouble when an assault rifle is displayed alongside a crossbow and a palstave in some museum.

I have no problem with people using dangerous technology like LP gas, guns, or computers. I also think that every society needs to find common-sense ways to control how they're used. (June 27, 2008)

Somewhat-related posts:

• Humans
  • "Washington Navy Shipyard: Monday Morning's Off to a Bad Start"
    (September 16, 2013)
  • "Using a Machete in a Global Civilization"
    (May 23, 2013)
  • "Bombs, Berserk Vendors, and Getting a Grip"
    (January 20, 2012)
  • "Infected Killer Robots! Unstoppable Virus!! MILITARY DENIAL!!!!!!!!!? No, not exactly"
    (October 8, 2011)
  • "Norway: Oslo, the Island of Utoya, Dead Bodies, Bad Motives"
    (July 24, 2011)
• Technology
  • "Dangerous Technology and Common Sense"
    (April 6, 2010)
  • "Set PHASERs on Stun: Koloc's Kugelblitz Research is For Real"
    Apathetic Lemming of the North (February 20, 2009)
  • "Non-Lethal Weapons"
    (March 6, 2008)
  • "DC Gun Ban, Online Censorship, Individual Rights, and Power to the People"
    (June 27, 2008)
    Particularly
    • Individual Freedom: a Treasure
  • "EEEK! Guns! Hoplophobia and Foreign Policy"
    (December 23, 2007)
• Me
  • "Egypt, Opinions, and Cautious Optimism"
    (August 25, 2013)
  • "Sin, Outrage, and Making Sense"
    A Catholic Citizen in America (May 5, 2013)
  • "Boston Marathon Bombing: Sauntering Through the News"
    (May 1, 2013)
  • "Playing 'Victim;' Living in a Big World"
    (March 13, 2012)
  • "Brilliant, Talented, and On Medication"
    A Catholic Citizen in America (November 30, 2010)

---

¹ From the news:

(FBI, via CNN, used w/o permission.)
"The FBI identified Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old military contractor from Texas, as the dead suspect involved in the shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday, September 16. Authorities said at least 12 people -- and the suspect -- were killed in the shooting."

"Vetting military contractors: How did Navy Yard gunman get in?"
Josh Levs, with Drew Griffin, Mariano Castillo; CNN (September 17, 2013)

"The shooter at the Washington Navy Yard had a 'pattern of misconduct' as a Navy reservist, had sporadic run-ins with the law, and had contacted two Veterans Administration hospitals for apparent psychological issues, sources have told CNN.

"Somehow, none of that prevented Aaron Alexis from getting clearance to the Washington Navy Yard as a subcontractor.

"In the wake of the horrific incident that left 12 victims and the gunman dead, lawmakers and military experts are calling out the vetting process for contractors and subcontractors. Did the military even know the things about Alexis that news agencies managed to find out within hours?

"Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican who serves on the Intelligence Committee, said she now questions 'the kind of vetting contractors do.'

" 'Washington needs a lot more answers,' Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-Washington, said in an interview Tuesday with CNN.

"The incidents in Alexis' past 'should have been a red flag that maybe we need to delve a little deeper into this individual,' said retired Navy Cmdr. Kirk Lippold.

"The Navy had sought to give him a 'general discharge' due to at least eight incidents of misconduct while on duty, but ultimately had to give him an honorable discharge due to lack of evidence to support the sterner measure, a U.S. defense official said Tuesday.

"But he went on to work for a group called The Experts, which was subcontracting with Hewlett Packard on a large military contract.

"With security clearance, he worked from September 2012 through January in Japan. His clearance was renewed in July, and he worked at facilities in Rhode Island, North Carolina and Virginia for weeks at a time upgrading computer systems, according to Thomas E. Hoshko, CEO of The Experts...."

---

"DC gunman was suffering host of mental issues prior to shooting, report says"
FoxNews.com (September 17, 2013)

"Navy veteran Aaron Alexis, who killed 12 people at a Navy building in Washington Monday morning, had been suffering a host of serious mental issues, including paranoia and a sleep disorder, law enforcement officials told the Associated Press.

"Alexis had been hearing voices in his head and had been treated since August by the Veterans Administration for his mental problems, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation in the case was continuing.

"Alexis, 34, was discharged from the Navy two years ago after serving hitches in Texas and Illinois....

"...He most likely gained entry into the facility with a CAC card, or a common access card. The system does not require workers to pass through a metal detector and usually only requires employees to show the card. Senior military officials tell Fox News that he most likely shot his way into building 197, because that building requires a separate pass he did not have.

"Washington Mayor Vincent Gray said there was still no motive for the shootings and no indication of terrorism 'although we haven't ruled that out.'

"While some neighbors and acquaintances described him as 'nice,' his father once told detectives in Seattle that his son had anger management problems related to post-traumatic stress brought on by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He also complained about the Navy and being a victim of discrimination...."

---

"Navy Yard: Aaron Alexis 'treated for mental health' "
BBC News (September 17, 2013)

"The ex-US Navy reservist who killed 12 people and wounded eight at a Washington DC Navy installation had received treatment for mental health issues, US media have reported.

"Aaron Alexis, 34, was treated for paranoia, trouble sleeping and hearing voices, the Associated Press reported.

"A contractor for the Navy, he had a valid pass for the secure site at the Washington Navy Yard, authorities said.

"Alexis was shot and killed by police during the attack...."

---

"Authorities question vetting of Washington gunman who killed 12"
Mark Hosenball and Ian Simpson, Reuters (September 17, 2013)

"Washington authorities questioned on Tuesday how a U.S. military veteran with a history of violence and mental problems could have gotten clearance to enter a Navy base where he killed 12 people before police shot him dead.

"The suspect, Aaron Alexis, 34, a Navy contractor from Fort Worth, Texas, entered Washington Navy Yard on Monday morning and opened fire, spreading panic at the base just a mile and a half from the U.S. Capitol and three miles from the White House.

"Investigators are still trying to determine the shooter's motive. Alexis had been given clearance to enter the base on the Anacostia River, despite two gun-related brushes with the law and a discharge from the Navy Reserve in 2011 after a series of misconduct issues.

"A federal law enforcement source told Reuters Alexis had a history of mental problems but gave no details. CNN reported that Alexis had contacted two Veterans Administration hospitals recently and was believed to be seeking psychological help.

" 'It really is hard to believe that someone with a record as checkered as this man could conceivably get, you know, clearance to get ... credentials to be able to get on the base,' Washington Mayor Vincent Gray told CNN.

"He said automatic U.S. budget cuts known as sequestration could have led to skimping on vetting that would have barred Alexis from the heavily guarded base...."

---

Washington Navy Shipyard: Monday Morning's Off to a Bad Start

(Reuters, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
So far, BBC News seems to have the best summary of what's happened:

• A gunman has killed at least four people at the Washington Navy Yard, a naval installation in the US capital, officials say
• Police were called to the scene after reports of shooting at 0820 local time (1320 GMT)
• Police say that one gunman is deceased and two additional suspects wearing military-style uniforms may still be at large
• US President Barack Obama has been briefed on the matter by top officials
• All times in GMT
  (BBC News)

"Going Postal??"

At about 8:20 this morning, Washington D.C. time, someone started shooting at people in the Washington Navy Yard. When news reports started, I thought that maybe one of the 3,000 or so folks who work there decided that today would be a good time to 'get even' with fellow-workers.

It's been a long time since "going postal" became a regrettable stress-management option.

What I've Heard

Now it looks like more than one person has been attacking folks at offices of the Chief of Naval Operations and other naval commands.

Based on what I've heard and read in the news, it looks like more than one person decided to attack the Washington Navy Yard, and that we don't know why they made that decision.

The only victims I've heard identified so far is police officer and one of the shooters. How many people are wounded or killed: those numbers are changing, which isn't a surprise this early in the situation.

Motive?

What motive the attackers have is important: but I don't know what it is. There isn't enough information available. I'm pretty sure that right now nobody except the attackers know why morning routines got disrupted. If they had associates, those folks know, too.

A half-century back, I wouldn't have been finding out so much this fast. When news did start filtering through, some folks would insist that commies were to blame; others would blame racists or blacks.

Today, I suppose some have already decided that Muslims are to blame. White supremacists probably wouldn't have been accused, since one shooter's ancestors came from Africa and another's from Europe.

At least one of the attackers is wearing something that looks like olive drab military garb: so someone has probably decided that the American military is to blame.

That's not as silly as it might seem, at least to folks who assume that the Pentagon, CIA, and 'they' are conspiring to do something dreadful. With that mindset, the attack could be seen as infighting or a plot to sway public opinion.

Keeping Track

I'm upset about this attack.

I can understand someone being disgruntled with working conditions, or not approving of American policy, or believing that the Federal government shouldn't act the way it does. But that's no excuse for hurting or killing people.

Since there is almost certainly more than one person involved in the attack, It's also very likely that the motive isn't related to someone's dissatisfaction with a job.

Given the meager facts we have so far, I could cobble together a nostalgic tale involving crazed white guys going after blacks who work for the Navy; explaining the black shooter as one of a team of secret commandos dedicated to spreading law, order, and the American way - - - or the other way around.

That, I think, would be an almost complete waste of time: mine and yours.

Instead, I'll get back to what I was working on before, and check in on the news at intervals.


(BBC News, used w/o permission.)

Background: Washington Navy Shipyard

The Washington Navy Shipyard started as a shipyard, was re-purposed as an ordinance, and now is a ceremonial and administrative center for the United States Navy.

In the news:

• "Several people killed or injured in U.S. Navy Yard shooting"
  Ian Simpson, Susan Heavey, Reuters (September 16, 2013)
• "Updates: Washington Navy yard shooting Key Points"
  BBC News (September 16, 2013)
  Includes video
• "At least 10 people injured in shooting at Navy building in Washington"
  FoxNews.com (September 16, 2013)

Related posts:

• "Boston Marathon Bombing: Sincerity isn't Truth"
  (April 20, 2013)
• "An Act of Terrorism in Colorado, Sort of"
  (April 27, 2011)
  Particularly
  • Nobody Got Hurt - This Time
  • #2 Shopping malls encourage terrorism?
• "Terrorists, America, and Generalizations"
  (July 28, 2009)
• "Right-Wing Extremists Really Are Terrorists, Sometimes"
  (June 6, 2009)
• "The Noble Thief of Brooklyn"
  (July 5, 2008)

Taliban Attack on Washington, D.C.: 'Soon'

Short version: A Taliban commander, in Pakistan, Baitullah Mehsud, says that the Taliban will attack Washington, D.C.. He didn't say when, but that it would be soon. Also, that the attack would be spectacular. " 'will amaze everyone in the world.' " is how Mehsud's remark got quoted.

It looks like Mehsud may not be bluffing: that the Taliban could attack Washington. Successfully. (FOXNews) Of course, that's from an article in FOXNews.

If you're in the circle that assumes that FOXNews is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, and that people who watch or read FOXNews are extreme right-wing, zenophobic, gun-toting, domestic terrorists - potential or actual: Pay no attention.

For the rest of us, who recognize that the poster's caption is distinctly post-WWII,¹ this could be serious. The White House is one of the specific targets that Baitullah Mehsud mentioned.

Someone from the Middle Eastern Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, James Phillips, said: " 'It's not too much of a stretch to think he might be involved in an attack on the U.S. if he's able to get his followers inside the United States. He's a militant extremist whose threats cannot be ignored.' " (FOXNews)

There's another reason for ignoring this whole "threat" thing. Phillips is with the Heritage Foundation. They even admit that they're conservative: so, in some circles, anything and everything that comes out of there is gravely suspect.

Again, for the rest of us, a threatened attack on Washington, by a leader in a group that controlled an entire country not too many years back, is a serious matter.

Personally, I'd Like to Feel Phillips is Wrong

In a way, I would like to feel, deep in my heart, that Phillips is wrong: That the Taliban are made up of nice-but-misunderstood people, that they couldn't possibly attack Washington even if they wanted to, and that everything will be fine: as long as America doesn't keep on causing all the trouble in the world.

But, I live in the real world. And that's not the way it is.

Baitullah Mehsud and Benzair Bhutto

If you've been paying attention to Pakistan and the 'Stans in general, Baitullah Mehsud should sound familiar. He's the fellow who said that he'd meet Benzair Bhutto with suicide bombers. Then, when she died in an attack that involved a suicide bomber, he said he didn't do it. And, as of today, it looks like he's sticking with that story.

Related posts:

• "No More "War on Terror" - Officially?"
  (March 30, 2009)
• "Pakistan; Nawaz Sharif; Multiculturalism; and a Skewed World View"
  (March 15, 2009)
• "Obama Reaches Out to Taliban: This Might Actually Work"
  (March 8, 2009)
  • Not one of my better posts: I didn't make it clear that the president was reaching out to Taliban supporters.
• "Change in Homeland Security: Don't Worry, Be Happy"
  (February 24, 2009)

News and views:

• "Taliban chief plans US attack"
  The Press Association (March 31, 2009)
• "Taliban Leader Vows To Attack D.C. 'Soon' "
  CBS News (March 31, 2009)
• "Taliban Leader's Washington Threat Is Credible, Analysts Say"
  FOXNews (March 31, 2009)
• "Taliban claims deadly police academy attack"
  CBCnews.ca (March 31, 2009)
• "Are the Pakistan Taliban charting an independent course?"
  Pakistan: Now or Never? Perspectives on Pakistan, Reuters (March 31, 2009)

---

¹ The poster is from "Vintage War Propaganda Posters," a page on Magazine 13. The post appeared on March 23, 2009: and starts with these words: "Sometimes memorabilia can transport you to the times even though you have not lived through them and that was the feeling I had when I was researching these posters. I can now appreciate why certain people like to collect the posters...."

The image in question is gone, with a no-link warning in its place. I have no idea whether or not the "HELP ME FIND AND KILL TERRORIST AGITATORS" poster is the author's notion of a joke: or whether that person really didn't know that FOX News did not exist in the 1940s - or any period when that style of poster was used.

The ersatz poster does, I think, serve - either way - as an example of how beliefs may be maintained by stoutly refusing to see or hear anything that deviates from the party line.

Muslim Family Talks Safety, Gets Booted From Flight

Nine people, traveling together, got on an airliner in Washington, D.C., and discussed safety. Then they were ordered off the plane, along with everybody else. The other passengers were re-screened, and continued to Orlando, Florida.

Kashif and Atif Irfan, their families and friend, didn't. The airline, Airtran Airways, wouldn't let them book another flight. There was an obvious reason.

They look funny.

The FBI cleared them, no problem. It was obvious that the nine people were an anesthesiologist and a lawyer, brothers, their families, and a friend.

That wasn't good enough for Airtran Airways. Airtran wouldn't let the Irfans and their friend book another flight to Orlando. Kashif, Atif, and all, eventually arranged transportation through a less exclusive carrier: US Airways.

The FBI, the Irfan Party, and Airtran: Common Sense and Full-Bore Bias

What seems to have started the ball rolling was some of the Irfans talking about safety. As a Washington paper put it:

"Kashif Irfan, one of the removed passengers, said the incident began about 1 p.m. after his brother, Atif, and his brother's wife wondered aloud about the safest place to sit on an airplane.

" 'My brother and his wife were discussing some aspect of airport security,' Irfan said. 'The only thing my brother said was, "Wow, the jets are right next to my window." I think they were remarking about safety.' "

Common Sense

Somebody heard that, apparently thought it was "suspicious activity, and made a report.

Then the Irfan party was interviewed, and all the other passenger re-screened.

Aside from the annoyance and frustration, I don't see all that much of a problem up to this point. It does look like someone on the plane over-reacted, but the Threat Advisory Level was probably still "High," and "suspicious activity" is supposed to be reported.



After the fact, we know that the Irfan's conversation was innocuous, but whoever heard it might not have been eavesdropping hard enough to tell. And, here in the real world, people do have a marked lack of enthusiasm for finding themselves soaring above the clouds, with pieces of airplane around them.

The FBI agents found that a concerned passenger had inconvenienced a doctor, a lawyer, their families, and a friend - and a planeload of other people.

So far, it's the sort of annoyance I ran into several years ago, flying to Atlanta. My daughter and I were given very personal, individual, attention - on both legs of the trip.

Annoying, frustrating: but understandable.

Full-Bore Bias

Getting cleared by the FBI wasn't good enough for Airtran Airways. Airtran wouldn't book the Irfans and their friend on another flight to Orlando.

If Airtran doesn't have a company policy of bigotry and a bias against non-Yankees, they're doing a good job of acting the part.

I don't always see eye-to-eye with CAIR, to put it mildly. This time, however, it looks like they've got a legitimate gripe. An Orlando television station carried CAIR's remarkably low-key statement - plus contact information (MyFox Orlando).

It might not be a company-wide policy: Some nincompoop at the Airtran Airways desk in Washington, D.C., may have simply had a snit over a flight getting delayed. Or maybe didn't like men with beards; or 'foreigners;' or women who don't wear correctly-revealing clothing.

This is Very Important: Bombs Bad; Beards Okay

Airtran's refusal of service is more than a matter of seriously inconveniencing and offending two families, and making an American air carrier look like the heavies from some 'relevant' seventies drama.

As I've said before, there's a war on. Quite a number of people are convinced that their god wants them to kill people: Americans, among others. By and large, their would-be victims would rather not be blown up or beheaded.

That's what's happening in the real world.

Not all terrorists, however, have beards and big noses.

And - this is very important - not all people with big noses and beards are terrorists. The same goes for women who don't wear mini-skirts and who do wear shawls.

If I lost a lot of weight and spent some time in the sun, I'd look a little like the man in that photo. And if I traveled on the same plane with you, the biggest risk I'd pose was the possibility that I'd engage you in conversation: I like to talk.

I hope that Airtran Airways reviews its policies, and decides to be a bit less exclusive: and that SNAFUs like this remain a comparatively rare event.

Airline Security: Smart and Otherwise

Wrapping this post up, I see these as the main points:

• Common sense
  • Someone with possibly-exaggerated caution, reporting "suspicious activity"
    • Innocent conversation? Yes, but a casual listener might not realize that
  • Interviewing the Irfan party
    • Who the FBI identified as innocent passengers
  • Re-screening all the passengers
    • It's called following procedure - and these days it does make sense
• Nincompoopery
  • Refusing to re-book people the FBI said were okay
    • If there's a marginally rational excuse for refusing to serve the Irfans, I can't see it

Airtran Airways' incredible behavior isn't just a matter of 'civil rights.' There are very real threats to the safety of travelers, and making sensible precautions look like nonsense doesn't help anyone, except the terrorists.

Related posts:

• "Madoff's Ponzi Scheme, Laptops, Nipple Rings, and the War on Terror"
  (December 17, 2008)
• "McCain Campaign BlackBerrys Sold at Bargain-Basement Prices - Confidential Data Included: What's the Matter With People These Days?! "
  (December 15, 2008)
• "TSA: Our Tax Dollars at Work:
  Protecting the Flying Public from Nipple Rings"
  (March 27, 2008)
• "If You Hear Someone Speaking Arabic,
  GET A GRIP! "
  (September 1, 2007)

News and views:

• "Muslim family booted off U.S. airline after comments"
  Reuters (January 2, 2009)
• " 'Safety' Remark Gets Muslim Family Kicked Off Plane"
  FOXNews (January 2, 2009)
• "9 Muslim Passengers Removed From Jet"
  Washington Post (January 2, 2009)
• "Orlando bound Muslim family kicked off plane"
  MyFox Orlando (January 1, 2008)

The New York Times Wrong! Nation's Newspaper of Record Corrects CIA Tapes Story

That headline is an example of the sort of trick The New York Times pulled.

And a pretty good example of why news should be read, not skimmed.

The nation's 'newspaper of record' published "White House Role Was Wider Than It Said" as the subheadline (or deck) of a story about an election-year sound-and-fury exercise about CIA interrogation tapes made in 2002.

Here's what happened:

• In the spring of 2002, months after the 9/11 attack, CIA interrogated Abu Zubaydah. He was thought to be a top Al Qaeda logistics officer. They weren't polite to him. In fact, he was kept in a cold room and subjected to loud music, and yelled at. According to one of last year's anti-Bush books, Zubaydah turned out to have three distinct personalities, "a boy, a young man and a middle-aged alter ego." The same book says that this nut (nuts?) was (were?) in charge of arranging travel arrangements for wives and children of Al Qaeda men. He also apparently told "what people ate, or wore, or trifling things they said."
• After information of the tapes of the interrogation was no longer useful, they were destroyed. Aside from taking up space with outdated data, keeping the tapes put the agents involved at risk.
• Now, with a presidential election coming up, politicos and civil rights professionals are very interested in finding out who ordered the tapes destroyed. The buzz word now is "waterboarding," a sort of mock-drowning. It sounds frighteningly unpleasant at best: not the sort of thing I'd care to experience.
• The New York Times ran the CIA tapes news story.

The current New York Times headline is "Bush Lawyers Discussed Fate of C.I.A.Tapes." The first two paragraphs read, "WASHINGTON — At least four top White House lawyers took part in discussions with the Central Intelligence Agency between 2003 and 2005 about whether to destroy videotapes showing the secret interrogations of two operatives from Al Qaeda, according to current and former administration and intelligence officials.

"The accounts indicate that the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged."

The fourth paragraph reads, "It was previously reported that some administration officials had advised against destroying the tapes, but the emerging picture of White House involvement is more complex." (emphasis is mine)

That's right: it's complicated. More than five and a half years after the fact, not everyone involved can remember exactly what they said, and who they said it to. It may be a White House Cover Up, or what a reasonable person might expect from the memories of several human beings.

Some journalist's dream of getting credit for the next Watergate phenomenon may come true as a result of this CIA tapes matter. Eventually, there will be a major scandal that supports the beliefs of papers like The New York Times. It is possible that the destruction of interrogation tapes in 2002 will be that scandal.

On the other hand, it may not.

Whether or not the CIA tapes were destroyed as part of some sinister cover-up, or whether FBI agents' assertions that they were doing fine until the CIA showed up (The Seattle Times), isn't as important, I think, as what this shows about news coverage.

Back in the 19th century, newspapers had very definite editorial viewpoints, and were proud of the fact. The Fargo Argus, for example, was a staunch Republican newspaper: and said so on the front page banner. I enjoyed reading the colorful, unabashedly biased, news stories, back when I was a researcher for a regional historical society.

Somewhere in the 20th century, news organizations decided that they should be unbiased and objective. That's a nice ambition, but I doubt that any combination of human beings could have the omniscience it would take to know, and report, facts and their meaning accurately and completely.

At best, a news outlet might aspire to give a very wide range of viewpoints, and let the reader or viewer sort out the result.

So What?

Knowledge is power. Headlines, and subheadlines or decks, are intended to catch attention - and can be used to give impressions that just aren't so.

Referring to the imaginative subhead, Editor and Publisher quotes The New York Time's Washington, DC, chief, Dean Baquet. He said that the subheadline went a "little farther than the story," the facts were true.

And the lesson is - Don't assume that the headlines, or the subheadlines, are accurate. And remember, those "objective" news stories may not include all the relevant facts. While you're at it, be aware of how the facts are presented: some words and phrases are emotional triggers, like "cover-up," "conspiracy," and "torture" or "abuse."

Remember, a few years ago, when prisoners at Gitmo were being abused, by being forced to sit on grass?

EOB: Executive Office Building, Near White House, is On Fire

The Eisenhower Office building, AKA Executive Office Building, AKA EOB, is on fire. Not the whole thing, just a couple of rooms on the second floor.

The odds are pretty good that the fire started in the construction that's been going on in the building for the last year or so. It might, or might not, be an electrical fire that got lucky.

The EOB is one of those old nineteenth century buildings, with 18 foot ceilings and four-foot-thick stone walls. Quite a landmark. I hope that the architect's "fire proof" design hasn't been messed with. His building was made of stone, concrete, with some cast iron for decoration.

There's some good news here:

• The building evacuation was orderly, with people walking, not running - a good, routine, orderly process.
• The fire seems to be limited to a room or so.
• Emergency response seems to have been prompt, and thorough: Something like a dozen vehicles showed up.

Something I don't quite understand: One firefighter, inside the building, took a tool to a window pane, broke it out - and then lifted the sash. It seems to me that it would have been faster, and more effective, to just lift the sash.

Now, maybe a half-hour after this news broke on cable, the smoke coming out of the EOB is white - indicating that there's water being put on the fire. And there isn't anywhere as much smoke as before.

The fire isn't out, but it's being dealt with.

More good news:

• The fire was low-key enough so that firefighters have been able to carry some furniture out - I saw one drape something like a coffee table over a (stone) balcony.
The emergency response seemed to be smooth, and by the numbers: quick, orderly, efficient - like it should be.
• And, according to Homeland Security, the fire is contained.

---

More facts, and opinions, as they crop up:

News weirdness:

• About 10:15 Washington time, the report was was that Secret Service, that has offices in the building, was that Secret Service agents were preventing firefighters from getting into the building.
  
  Reality check: five minutes later, we hear that Secret Service agents are vetting everyone who goes into the building, to make sure that they really should be there. Not a bad idea, considering how many sensitive documents are in there, and what a wonderful opportunity this would be for someone to plant a regrettable device in the EOB. Apparently, fire investigators aren't being allowed in. Not yet.

Background and Details

• The fire most likely started in an electrical closet near the Vice President's ceremonial office. I hope that room wasn't damaged or defaced by the fire. My guess is that it would be somewhere between difficult and impossible to fix the damage properly these days. We don't make things now, like they did over a hundred years ago. Often, for good reason.
• Details about the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, from the White House website.
• Interesting detail: The reporter I heard called it the "Executive Office Building," or EOB; For the White House, it's the "Eisenhower Executive Office Building," or EEOB.
• That "Eisenhower" part of the name comes from President Eisenhower saving the building from demolition in the fifties. The place has been due for repairs and renovation for decades: and quite a bit of it is getting worked on now.
• The EOB has been getting upgrades for a long time. In 1900, holes were drilled in the EOB's granite and ironwork to accommodate the War Department's new telephone system (this is the current Fact of the Week from the White House site). It might have been easier to tear the thing down, in the fifties, and then tear that down now, with today's technology in mind. I'm glad the old building was kept, though. I think there's a place for tradition.
• One injury: a U.S. Marine was on the fifth floor when the fire broke out. With a fire of undetermined extent between him and the ground, he quite reasonably broke out a window. With his hands. He was treated at the scene for lacerations, and refused transport to a hospital.

What's the big deal with this fire, and this post? I'll write about that next.