Letters

Stressing SecurityKatherine McIntire Peters' article "Security vs. Bureaucracy" (April) was well written and researched. However, both she and the news media have consistently missed the mark when talking about homeland security, rarely mentioning the State Department's critical role.

Unfortunately, State doesn't appear to be particularly effective. Our first line of defense should not be the U.S. borders, but the foreign countries where, too often, American embassies issue visas without thorough background checks on visitors coming to the United States. The embassies-along with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Customs Service and the Coast Guard-should be an integral part of Tom Ridge's strategy for controlling the flow of people across our borders.

When I worked at the U.S. Information Agency in the early 1980s, I was appalled at how few controls were in place to effectively track and monitor foreigners in the United States. From all I've read recently, the State Department is still woefully inadequate in screening the entry of dangerous visitors. The FBI and CIA are now sharing information with the State Department, and that should help. But additional resources and a shift in policy are sorely needed at all U.S. embassies to better ensure our safety before foreign visitors are allowed into the United States.

Ira H. Schoen
Senior Financial Management Analyst
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Ignoring History

It is unfortunate your author missed the mark in describing the threat faced by Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge in your article, "Security vs. Bureacracy." It's not the agencies he oversees, but his own bias that will keep him marginalized.

Both Ridge and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta appear to be ignoring the public, the facts and historical evidence in their planning.

By failing to arm pilots and flight crews and ceding victory to terrorists by dictating what passengers can carry aboard, Ridge and Mineta have effectively minimized freedom and security. Failure to require screening for potential terrorists (i.e., 17- to 34-year-old males of apparent Middle Eastern extraction), focusing instead on elderly women, war heroes, congressmen and Secret Service agents in the name of political correctness, does not foster agencies' trust in such misguided leadership.

Glen Newtown
St. Charles, Mo.