ST. LOUIS (Reuters) – A federal grand jury in Los Angeles has indicted a Turkish national on terrorism-support charges for allegedly wiring money to Pakistan to help fund attacks against American military personnel.

Oytun Ayse Mihalik, 39, of La Palma, California, a permanent resident of the United States, used Western Union to wire more than $2,000 from a grocery store in Buena Park to a person in Pakistan, prosecutors said late Wednesday. They also say she knew the money would be used for attacks on U.S. military personnel and other people overseas.

Court documents state that Mihalik, a pharmacist who worked at CVS, made three wire transfers – $750, $600, and $700 – to Pakistan in December 2010 and January 2011. They said the first wire was made in her name, but the latter two were made using the alias “Cindy Palmer.”

While Mihalik printed the name “Cindy Palmer” as the sender of the final two wires, Western Union receipts reveal she always signed her real name, according to an affidavit filed by investigators.

The affidavit said that when sending the first transfer, Mihalik gave the Western Union agent a New York telephone number as her contact number. That number was linked to her husband’s cellular phone.

It adds that investigators believe Mihalik’s marriage, which led to her status as a permanent resident, was a sham.

Court documents do not identify the recipient of the alleged wire transfers, nor do they name any suspected terrorist organizations.

Mihalik has been in federal custody since she was arrested on a false statements charge on August 27 while preparing to board a flight to Turkey and with a one-way ticket, court documents state.

They said Mihalik told federal agents she did not intend to return to the United States and that she had called to say goodbye to her husband.

Mihalik’s lawyer has denied the charges against her.

If convicted, she could face decades in prison.

The government tightened security in airports and seaports Tuesday, a day after the announcement of the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, while the airline industry fears a possible drop in passengers.

The Korea Customs Service ordered affiliate agencies to “thoroughly examine goods coming in from countries with a large terrorist presence including socialist nations and countries whose nationals have been caught for attempting to bring in terrorism-related items.”

The KCS launched an emergency operation system for the first time after the North’s shelling of Yeonpyeong Island in November last year.

“The emergency operation system and the bolstered inspection in airports and seaports will be maintained until it is deemed that there is no more danger,” a KCS official said.

Inspection of travelers’ carry-on baggage will be toughened in case of attempts to smuggle in firearms and knives.

The number of customs officials for X-ray inspection of express cargo and mail packages will be doubled.

Seaport authorities will reinforce naval patrol and search of ships directly or indirectly related to nations with a large terrorist presence.

The KCS headquarters and customs offices across the country will have a person per department on watch 24 hours to report to the KCS chief in case of emergencies.

If the risks due to Kim’s death stretch out, the airline industry could see a drop in travelers and losses coming from the Korean won’s depreciation.

“If tension heightens on the Korean Peninsula, there could be a reduction in Japanese and Chinese travelers to Korea,” an official at an airliner said.

Korean Air and Asiana Airlines started loading additional fuel on their aircraft starting Monday in case they need to detour when flying near North Korean airspace.

Korean flag carriers had used the Kamchatka route for flights flying to North America and Far East Russia until North Korea’s attack on a South Korean naval ship last March. They have been detouring toward Japan since then.

Asiana and Korean Air have ordered the loading of additional fuel to keep the planes flying for another 90 minutes and 30 minutes, respectively, immediately after the news report that Kim Jong-il was dead.

By Kim So-hyun (sophie@heraldm.com)
The Korea Herald

The Wall Street Journal

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay–The countries of a South American customs union agreed to work to block ships flying flags from the disputed, British-held Falkland islands from dropping anchor in their ports.

The Mercosur group includes Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay with Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador as associate members.

The presidents of the four full member countries signed a declaration Tuesday vowing “to adopt, in conformity with international law and respective domestic legislation, all the measures it’s possible to impose to impede the entry of boats flying the illegal flag of the Malvinas Islands,” according to a copy of the agreement released by the Argentine foreign ministry. Argentina refers to the islands as the Malvinas.

Britain has controlled the islands since 1833 and fought a two-month war with Argentina over the territory it claims in 1982, resulting in the deaths of 255 British and 649 Argentine soldiers.

Argentina increased its claims of sovereignty over the Falklands, as well as South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, following the start of oil and gas exploration last year by London-listed oil-and-gas exploration companies Falkland Oil & Gas Ltd., Rockhopper Exploration PLC, and Desire Petroleum PLC.

In February 2010, Argentina began requiring ships sailing to or from the Falkland, South Georgia and South Sandwich islands to seek permission if they want to travel through Argentine waters.

The couched language of the Mercosur declaration contrasts to a more forceful stance taken by Uruguay on behalf of Argentina, which continues to claim the islands and refuses to acknowledge British control.

Earlier in the meeting Uruguayan President José Mujica said in a statement that he would block Falkland Island-flagged ships from entering Uruguayan ports, although said his country would do nothing to stop ship’s flying different colors from sailing to the British-held islands.

However, navy ships from the U.K. bound for the Falkland Islands would not be allowed to port in Uruguay “for reasons of solidarity with Argentina,” Mr. Mujica said.

The U.K. Foreign Office said Wednesday it was concerned by the Mercosur decision.

“It is unacceptable to engage in an economic blockade of the Falklands. Mercosur should take the responsible decision and not do this. There can be no justification – legal, moral or political – for efforts to intimidate the people of the Falkland Islands,” a British foreign office statement said on Wednesday.

Sparks flew earlier this month when Uruguay turned back a Spanish-owned fishing boat flying a flag from the Falkland Islands.

On Friday, Britain summoned Uruguay’s ambassador to voice its complaints over the move, but Mr. Mujica stood firm. “We don’t have anything against England, but we’ve got a lot in favor of our neighbors,” he said in a statement.

The U.K. has repeatedly said that its sovereignty over the three groups of islands, whose inhabitants are overwhelmingly of British descent, isn’t negotiable.

Write to Shane Romig at shane.romig@dowjones.com

These zones are needed to protect the cruise ships and the public from destruction, loss or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious acts of a similar nature. Persons or vessels may not enter these security zones without permission of the COTP or a COTP designated representative.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective August 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2010-0803 and are available online by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0803 in the “Keyword” box, and then clicking “Search.” This material is also available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

For more information or to read the full-article, click HERE

The pole demonstrates how quickly accurate information can shift American’s views on issues, but reveals the most crucial issues are the economy and budget deficit; leaving out the importance of immigration, terrorism and illegal drugs.

For further information on the poll, visit Center for Biological Diversity

Published July 12, 2011

Fox News has obtained a draft copy of a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that concludes, a decade after 9/11, gaping holes remain in databases of overseas terrorists as well as in passport security.

“The system truly is as strong only as its weakest link,” Maine Sen. Susan Collins, the senior Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, told Fox News after reviewing the report.

But the threat and terrorists’ abilities are now more concrete than ever: A WikiLeak website document revealed that a NATO meeting had discussed an organized Al-Qaeda program that is set up to recruit both scientists and nuclear material. The goal of the program is to lead to Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).

Revealing of Al-Qaeda’s intricate network, the documents showed in detail the likely connection of weapons-grade material found on a freight train on the Kazakhstan-Russia border and the attempted sale of stolen radioactive plates in Lisbon.

(Read AFP article below for the full story)

A solid indication of terrorist plotting and vast potential directs one to consider the areas of the U.S. that are most susceptible to terrorist exploitation. Security experts, Congress, and the 9/11 Commission have time and again focused on seaport cargo as perhaps the greatest resource available to the Al-Qaeda and other extremist initiatives. It’s not difficult to see why: Fifteen million 40-foot standard shipping containers enter U.S. ports each year, to be loaded on railroads and trucks and move about the nation, the vast majority of which are not screened for radioactive or explosive materials.

A horde of security initiatives have been drafted, passed through Congress, and even funded–without being implemented: Take a look at futile Congressional mandates such as Public Law 110-53, the CBP’s initiative, and the 9/11 Commission Act.  While technology has been developed to easily screen cargo, such as crane-mounted scanners that don’t slow the shipping process, organizational efforts on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security have been a failure.

Read about U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Container Security Initiative HERE

Point blank, our at-risk nation cannot procrastinate the implementation of cargo scanning devices any longer. The cost is minute when compared to the devastation that a radioactive dirty bomb would have on the U.S., both in lives threatened as well as economic impact.

AFP article below:

Al Qaeda actively seeking “dirty” bombs: documents

(AFP) – Feb 2, 2011

LONDON — Al-Qaeda is attempting to procure nuclear material and recruit rogue scientists in order to build a radioactive “dirty bomb,” leaked documents published in Wednesday’s Telegraph newspaper revealed.

The cables, released by the WikiLeaks website, showed that security chiefs told a NATO meeting in January 2009 that Al-Qaeda was planning a programme of “dirty radioactive improvised explosive devices (IEDs).”

The makeshift nuclear bombs, which could be used against soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, would contaminate the surrounding area for years to come.

The leaked documents also revealed that Al-Qaeda papers found in 2007 convinced security officials that “greater advances” had been made in bio-terrorism than was previously feared.

US security personnel were warned in 2008 that terrorists had “the technical competence to manufacture an explosive device beyond a mere dirty bomb.”

Also laid bare in the diplomatic cables are the attempts made to smuggle volatile materials as rogue organisations seek to get their hands on weapons-grade fuel.

The memos detailed how a freight train on the Kazakhstan-Russia border was found to be carrying weapons-grade material while a “small-time” dealer in Lisbon tried to sell radioactive plates stolen from Chernobyl.

In a separate leaked memo, which documented a January 2010 meeting between Janet Napolitano, US Secretary of Homeland Security, and European ministers, the German interior minister revealed his concerns over aircraft security.

According to the cable, Thomas de Maiziere expressed his fear that terrorists could use “children’s articles to introduce bombs into airplanes.”

In the wake of the alarming recognition of our nation’s vulnerability—and a horrified post-9/11 American public—Congress frenzied throughout the last decade to ensure more superior homeland security. The result was the umbrella legislation for various smaller bills known as the 9/11 Commission Act, passed in 2007. The bill was Congress’ attempt to patch the large security pothole that allows volatile materials and individuals to enter and move about the U.S., as well as to heighten emergency response effectiveness.

A panoramic view shows shipping containers lined up at a port. Security experts believe that the standard containers are vulnerable to terrorist activity. Still, screening processes have not been implemented.

Much of the bill appeals to the most basic of homeland security logic: Why wouldn’t the vast amounts of cargo travelling about the U.S. be screened in a similar fashion as are travelling passengers and luggage? One can only imagine the gleaming prospect for terrorist activity, should the opportunity present itself for an individual to rather unanimously board unscreened packages via American aircraft or vessel. Congress worked to defeat this menace with a plethora of solid verbal, written, and even monetary commitments to homeland security over the past decade.

But without significant change to security procedures, Public Law 110-53 was created, a 286-page act made to implement the 9/11 Act itself and actually put into action the security recommendations put forth by the National Commission on Terrorists Attacks Upon the United States. A step in the right direction resulted from PL 110-53: Requirements were set forth upon the TSA to screen all airborne cargo prior to when it is loaded for travel in U.S. territory, requirements of which finally went into effect on August 1, 2010.

Now more than six months later,security experts begin to weigh in on the decade-long efforts put forth by the TSA and Congress, as it becomes possibleto determine the results of screening requirements, and if the nation is any safer today than it was on September 11, 2001. And regrettably, the answer is—no.

Even if the airborne cargo screening is effective, the monstrous majority of shipments roaming about the U.S. remain unchecked for explosives and radioactivity: Ninety-five percent of imports arrive via sea, and are not subject the TSA screening mandates. The 40-foot marine containers that have become the standard for maritime import are especially susceptible to terrorist exploitation due to their sheer volume and familiarity (i.e., each container is identical, despite what’s inside). Experts agree that explosives, weapons, and nuclear or radioactive materials could be smuggled into shipping containers—to be found on U.S. ships, trains, and winding down our highways on 18 wheelers—could be smuggled in containers free of screening.

This is not to say that Congress has turned its back on the issue. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff wrote, in PL 110-53, “A container that was loaded on a vessel in a foreign port shall not enter the United States (either directly or via foreign port) unless the container was scanned by nonintrusive imaging equipment and radiation detection equipment at a foreign port before it was loaded on a vessel.”

The key to homeland security initiatives is effective implementation, without which legislation and finances remain wholly futile. Evidently, meeting the current security necessities has been a battle.

What did Congress promise the American people following 9/11? See the 9/11 Commission Bill summary here.

In a related US News & World Report article from August 17, 2010, columnist Chris Battle discusses how and why Congress made empty promises regarding national security. Read article HERE.

Click here for the original article

How did the package get from Saudi Arabia to Genoa? Click here for the You Tube video!

The radioactive container is barricaded in Genoa. Photo courtesy of Il Secolo XIX.

Click here to see more photos

The rest of the story…

“Fear of Opening Radioactive Container May Force it Out to Sea on a Barge”

“The opening of the container, which is necessary for decontamination, is anything but simple, and indeed, if the container is the act of a terrorist plot, would also be very dangerous, because the doors may be rigged to an explosive device.”  View full article and related stories from Google Italy:

January 11, 2011

“Local Politicians Debate Handling of Radiactive Container”

“Ferretti said “This subject is very serious and I find it awkward and inappropriate that this container was unloaded on the ground and its radioactive qualities discovered only after dock workers were exposed to it for four or five days.  Therefore, I will not join in my colleague’s applause of [the response]…”  View full article and related stories from Google Italy:

Scanning and screening are very different, and the process begins far from the docks of an American port, starting days or weeks before a ship pulls in and begins unloading cargo. Patrick Simmons, director of Non-Intrusive Inspection Technologies at Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP) unit, explained to DTI that while 100% of “high-risk cargo” is screened before entering American waters, only a small percentage of cargo that has not previously been flagged as “high risk” actually is physically screened.

Shipping to and from U.S. ports moves $700 billion in goods in more than 15 million containers each year, and any attack or disruption of this flow would have serious consequences not only for the U.S. economy, but global commerce. That is why the issue of port security, both the physical entity ashore as well as ensuring that arriving ships are not carrying items intended to harm or disrupt the nation, is critical, but somehow it seems to fall below the radar when matters of national security are debated….

Read More at Aviation News