In the past few weeks, 8 people employed by the British National Health Service, have been arrested as suspects in failed bombing attempts in London and Glasgow. Two of them, both doctors, had taken preliminary steps to work in the U.S. These arrests have raised a potentially thorny issue that hasn’t received a lot of attention until now. That is; how far do companies and government agencies need to go when doing background checks prior to hiring a new employee to check for ties to terrorist organizations or criminal backgrounds?
One big difference between the recent incident in the U.K. and most previous incidents involving terrorism is that the alleged perpetrators are highly educated, middle class and employed. Prior to this incident, the majority of people involved in terrorist organizations have been the opposite: poor, uneducated, unemployed and disenfranchised. It was thought that these frustrating conditions make people more likely to fall under the influence of fringe religious and political groups and cults and easier to radicalize. It was assumed that people, like the doctors accused in this case, wouldn’t be so likely to be attracted to these groups because they are financially secure, they are fully functioning, fully engaged members of their societies and, at the end of the day, they have a lot to lose if they were jailed or killed.
Times are changing, however. The war in Iraq rages on and consequently, according to the NIE report issued this week, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are regaining strength and anti-American and anti-Western sentiment is growing. At the same time other countries like Lebanon and Palestine, and some in Africa and Indonesia, are growing more chaotic every day. Millions are left with no jobs, no food and no hope and are forced to flee their homes for foreign countries, sometimes bringing people of highly conservative or extreme religious and political beliefs into confrontation with societies with more secular humanist belief systems. All of these factors are contributing to a sense of frustration, alienation and desperation in a growing number of people in Europe and even in the United States who are susceptible to radicalization.
Now we have a situation where 8 very educated people employed in highly responsible positions are accused of attempting to murder hundreds of their fellow citizens. That was followed, just this week, with news that a low-level worker at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the birthplace of the atomic bomb, was caught trying to sell information on how to make enriched uranium to a person who he thought was representing another country. That person, fortunately, was an undercover F.B.I. agent, but this serves to further illustrate the point that the possibility of a terrorist infiltrating a company through a legitimate position is becoming a reality that we all have to face.
The British government is currently reviewing their hiring procedures and the background checks that were done on the accused doctors. This review will necessarily focus on the practice of fast-tracking the immigration process on foreign-born skilled workers and the thoroughness of the background checks done on all employees. Many companies and governments will be faced with similar situations in the coming years. Industries ranging from finance to pharmaceuticals face very real threats from infiltration and the potential damage to companies, the economy and the public at large is enormous.
What do we do? It is clear that thorough background checks are now a necessity for skilled workers. Calling a few references and a credit check will not be enough to protect your company. Checks on where a prospective employee has traveled in the past few years, or where they have studied can raise flags. Affiliations with activist groups or extremist political organizations need to be looked into for ties to illegal or violent activities. A thorough check of the court systems everywhere the person has lived, including outside the U.S., for criminal records is a must. In short, the kind of background checks normally reserved for high level executives should be considered for any employee with a degree of responsibility and access to sensitive information or secured areas.
The government can not do enough to keep us completely safe. Terrorism is here to stay and it is no longer in someone else’s back yard. Terrorists and those who are susceptible to radicalization are here in our towns and communities. They could be our doctors, our bankers, our pharmacists and without igniting a single bomb, they could inflict catastrophic damage. We have to accept that fact and act accordingly.
Download the audio of Max Chapter 4 (right click, save as)
Joseph Rotanski had been the head of Mossad for three years. He regarded the Mossad as a bloated, secretive organisation, spending money freely, and delivering few results. Word had it that Rotanski was politically ambitious.
Only one unit had so far been exempt from his economising. Assassinations. They could spend what they wanted to. So long as they kept sending home the corpses.
But Sam hadn’t delivered for 9 months…