Senate security testimony raises questions

A well-hyped burst of political drama played out last week when a labor union representing police officers at regional transit hubs delivered testimony before a State Senate hearing on terrorism threats.

The hearing of the Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs Committee in Manhattan generated news coverage about security "vulnerability" linked to short-staffing of police on the Kennedy Airport AirTrain in Queens and other Port Authority of New York and New Jersey facilities.

Political players got the desired face time.

One was the Port Authority Police Benevolent Association, whose first vice president, Robert Morris, said the agency has failed to "properly police its facilities" and "chosen to invest non-police-based security of questionable value." That's a logical plug for a public-employee union whose chief goal is to resist overtime cuts and maximize its dues-paying base.

The other beneficiary was rookie Sen. Greg Ball (R-Putnam), chairman of the Senate committee. His standard cautionary sound bites regarding 9/11 and the "soft underbelly that can be used against us" got plenty of pickup. Security at big transit centers is, of course, an important public issue.

That said, the story of this episode and how it unfolded raises questions about what information is reliable and how it is used.

The key physical prop of the day, by all accounts, was a written list produced by the union naming four Port Authority facilities as vulnerable potential terrorism targets.

"Because of the extreme sensitivity of these issues," stated Morris' released testimony, "and the fact that they identify specific potential targets for terrorists, they have been redacted on all copies of this testimony, except the original, which I am presenting to you, sir, in a sealed envelope."

According to accounts from the hearing, Ball cited aloud the JFK AirTrain. Other targets were identified in published reports as the Manhattan-to-New Jersey crossings, the Bayonne Bridge and the Port Authority Bus Terminal.

Which brings us to some hard questions.

Was this information really so sensitive as to merit redaction from the PBA's public testimony? If so, did Ball breach some kind of security protocol by revealing it? If not, was the union fueling perception of a threat to promote its interests?

Ball answered in broad terms when asked about this tangle by phone Tuesday. He reiterated where it seemed to him communications and patrols have fallen off since 9/11. He said the P.A. "shouldn't allow budget issues or internal politics to ignore our security."

Union officials said they had not wanted to be responsible for identifying the sites, but left it to Ball and company, as public officials, to treat it as they saw fit. On Friday, Morris said in his statement, as provided: "The decision of what, if any, of this information you choose to make public is up to you."

That didn't sit well, in private, with some in law enforcement. A New York City Police Department Counter-Terrorism Bureau source said, "Union official or not, this person is still a cop and should be disciplined for what he did."

Other angry opinions were expressed. Port Authority officials, who requested not to be identified, asserted that an internal document cited by the union regarding the conductorless AirTrain, was expressly written to justify desired patrols.

Added another, "It's all about more police officers so the union gets bigger and overtime is protected. . . .Why would we think the AirTrain is more vulnerable than the Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North or the subway given the amount of policing those systems get? Because it's on the airport and that's their domain?"

That sounds like a question worth answering.