|     |     |  About Us   |   Archives   |   Contact Us |

Sign up for Security Debrief Newsletters



Archive for February, 2008

The Lessons of an Unnecessary Death; Will NYPD Learn?

Friday, February 29th, 2008

That Sean Bell died at the hands of a NYPD officer in a mistaken shooting is tragic, and that is regretted by all involved is undisputable. The case has become the latest cause celebre for a host of (self?) interested parties to promote their own agendas, turning a tragedy into a political platform.What happened is the business of the judge (it’s a bench trial, not a jury trial), but what happened should give us all — particularly the NYPD — cause for concern and investigation. One officer conducting a bad shoot is an accident; two is a coincidence. Five, however, demonstrates a systematic problem.

Sean Bell died from one of thirty-one bullets fired by a NYPD officer. Thirty-one shots, of which only a handful were anywhere near on target. There was not one crime here but two. The first was the unnecessary death of an innocent human being; the second was the inaccuracy of the pistol fire by all of the officers concerned.

Rounds landed on walls, trucks, the street, all presumptive evidence of a lack of accurate fire; from the opposite perspective, no bystanders were injured, suggesting that either the officers were lucky, or that at least they were conscious of the background when they were firing, and didn’t fire if there was the chance of hitting the wrong person.

There has been no convincing comment on changes to either the training or the standard operational procedures of the NYPD, which suggests that the NYPD and the City are content to deal with the issue as one of personal culpability rather than a systematic problem.

Any organisation unwilling to investigate a systematic problem and rectify it, be that organisation a corporation, a police department or another government entity, is setting itself up for further embarrassment from failure to learn from mistakes. If the systematic failure in the training — whether it too infrequent training, training that is not comprehensive, or something else — is not uncovered and rectified, then the same problem may happen again. I understand that the NYPD may be reluctant to expose its flaws, but if the officers’ actions resulted from a failure in the system rather than a failure in themselves, it should be identified and publicly rectified, if only to restore faith in the Department’s ability to police itself.

New Amtrack Security

Thursday, February 28th, 2008

Well I have now completed some follow-up on one of my previous postings, regarding the new security procedures put in place by Amtrak.

First of all, the changes are very visible. There is an increase in uniformed officers and K-9 support units, in the stations and on the trains. I spoke to a number of the uniformed officers and they sounded pleased and motivated by the new approaches.

Second, on the trains and at each seat there is a tastefully done laminated card explaining the new measures.

Finally and probably most important to many, I saw no delays caused by the added security, in fact my train to New York and my return arrived a little ahead of schedule.

Nice work Amtrak.

No FISA Bill Without Telecom Immunity

Thursday, February 28th, 2008

Word on Capitol Hill is that Steny Hoyer is feeling some heat to pass FISA reauthorization and is floating a number of compromise bills. However, one of those “compromise” bills would not address the issue of immunity for telecommunications companies that answered the call of government the first time around and now are being threatened with lawsuits. If Congress passes a bill without addressing this critical component, it means that the telecom companies will be left out in the cold.

Having passed something, members of Congress will go back home and tell their constituents that they did the right thing and addressed the critical security needs of our country. They simply won’t mention the complicated telecom issue, and act as if they took bold action. They’ll feel no sense of urgency to return the matter — which means that the private sector companies, whom the government has begged to join the homeland security effort, will be open targets for lawsuits … and good luck getting such cooperation from the private sector ever again.

Let’s Not Mix H2O With Na

Thursday, February 28th, 2008

Earlier this week, the House Homeland Security Committee held a hearing on draft legislation that would make the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards regulation – that went into effect in June 2007 and is set to sunset in October 2009 – permanent.

Representatives of the chemistry industry expressed concern about the bill’s inclusion of the inherently safer technologies (IST) concept.

Let’s not mix H2O with Na here. Safety and security are mutually exclusive objectives that require different approaches. The IST concept does not belong in the CFATS regulation, and DHS should have no business in overseeing chemical safety standards.

After watching the hearing on this topic, the Chemical Industry and DHS must spend more time educating the members of Congress and staffs on exactly what the difference are.

Does Anyone do Homework Anymore?

Wednesday, February 27th, 2008

As any parent of school age children can attest, homework is not just a challenge for your child, it’s a challenge for the parent as well. After going through multiplication tables, the science homework or the English report for the 15th time, the question undoubtedly comes out of your child’s mouth as a tired, frustrated whine, “Why do I need to know this stuff?”

Any parent who has experienced this situation will often retort in some fashion, “So you know how to do this stuff later in life! Now get back to work!”

A recently released Congressional Research Service makes me wonder whether these folks do any homework at all.

The report (“DHS Directorate of Science & Technology: Key Issues for Congress”) expresses concern over the ability of businesses, researchers and entrepreneurs to access S&T leaders; the effectiveness of the Directorate’s relationships with others; how they define priorities from their customers and a laundry list of other items.

All of these are legitimate areas for Congressional oversight, but can they really be labeled as a cause for concern? You’re kidding me right? If there is any component of DHS that is readily open, accessible and clear on its priorities and the others identified in the CRS Report, it’s DHS’ S&T shop.

Somewhere at DHS Headquarters there has to be a tally board for public appearances and delivered remarks by the Department’s leadership. If that board really exists, S&T’s Under Secretary Jay Cohen has got to be at the top of the list. Whether addressing small or large gatherings in Washington or in other cities in the US or around the world, U/S Cohen from Day ONE has clearly identified what his priorities are; how his shop does business; who they work with; what avenues are available for entrepreneurs, inventors and businesses to explore and so forth. He’s not alone in doing that either.

On multiple occasions, Cohen has packed up his senior staff up and traveled around the country and the world to deliver that information in person to anyone who wants to listen. In December 2007, he went to London to address international researchers and technology developers. Just last month, he traveled to Los Angeles in an effort to focus on the needs of first responders. He has also hosted a national stakeholders conference in May 2007 (with another scheduled for June 2008) to showcase his Directorate’s agenda and explain how others can help him and the S&T Team advance the homeland’s critical R&D needs.

During all of these appearances, attendees are able to sign up to sit down with S&T leaders and staff in individual research areas to share their research or discuss how they could work together.

The real cause for concern is that other DHS directorates and components don’t emulate S&T’s approach.

As to being clear on the priorities of the Directorate and the needs of his ‘customers,’ I don’t know how much clearer U/S Cohen could be on articulating on what those are without administering individualized tattoos of his talking point and PowerPoint charts to every person in the room who hears him speak. [In case you want a tattoo of that top priority list it should say: “1. Cyber, 2. IEDs, 3. Interoperability.” The color of the ‘ink’ is up to you.]

It is painfully obvious that the people behind this report were one of the following:

Far too lazy to get out from behind their desks to go hear him speak (which is amazing because it seems U/S Cohen has been everywhere at least twice in his year and a half in office and would probably show up at your desk and talk if you invited him);

They didn’t take notes on what he said; or

They didn’t attend one of the hundreds of open-to-the-public conferences or R&D meetings that he and his staff have participated.

Instead, it appears they got the S&T shop confused with some other portion of DHS that doesn’t engage in any outreach at all and fails to define their customers, priorities and mission assignments.
Or maybe they just didn’t do their homework.

Counterfeit Goods: The Biggest Crime Nobody Is Doing Anything About

Wednesday, February 27th, 2008

I challenge you to guess the crime no one cares to do anything about !

  • It costs U.S. businesses $200 to $250 billion annually
  • It is directly responsible for the loss of more than 750,000 American jobs
  • It has increased from $5.5 billion to approximately $600 billion annually worldwide since 1982
  • It has directly resulted in the death of U.S. citizens, funds terrorism and other criminal activity, undermines our economy and its lifeblood – research and development.

Did you guess counterfeiting? Intellectual property rights? Piracy?

Probably not.

Consider this:

  • The FDA estimates that counterfeit drugs account for 10% of all drugs sold in the United States;
  • The FAA estimates that approximately 520,000 parts installed each year in aircraft are counterfeit;
  • And the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association has cited violations due to counterfeiting that include brakes made of compressed grass, transmission fluid made of cheap dyed oil and oil filters made of rags.

Not only is this a crime that hurts the American economy — and therefore results in higher costs for consumers — it is also be the cause of serious illness or even death. If a patient is dependent upon prescription medication and is unwittingly taking counterfeit drugs, her life could be in danger.

And yet, these crimes capture little attention in the media and even less in many law enforcement circles.

Outside of sporadic law enforcement successes by ICE, CBP, the FBI, FDA and state/local law enforcement agencies (LEAs), there appears to be no sustained law enforcement effort to combat this growing problem. Most law enforcement agencies dedicate a minimal amount of resources to investigate Intellectual Property rights cases, and unless the affected manufacturers or property owners go to extraordinary measures to counteract the counterfeiting of their products themselves, little or no action is taken.

Microsoft recently announced the completion of an investigation with multiple LEAs that arguably commenced in 2001 with a U.S. Customs seizure in Los Angeles of a shipping container filled with fake software, including 31,000 copies of the Windows operating system. The criminal organization was responsible for about 90 percent of the fake software that Microsoft found between 1999 and 2004. Microsoft pushed the investigation through 22 countries utilizing an internal anti-piracy team to provide LEAs ammunition to conduct raids and criminal cases in the United States, Italy, Canada, Germany, Singapore, Australia, Paraguay, Poland, and China. As one prosecutor stated, the burden is often on the company holding the brand to travel the world collecting evidence, doing undercover work and coordinating with law enforcement agencies.

One of the few remaining U.S. economic advantages is our research and development of products and technology. It is what has driven U.S. economic development for decades. More needs to be done to protect that advantage.

Government needs to dedicate more resources to investigate criminal organizations that are involved in IPR piracy. Manufacturers need to dedicate more resources to protect their investment in research and development. Both need to dedicate more resources to educate the public about this crime, and the fact that, as evidenced by the statistics above, such crime is most certainly not victimless.

Washington must change course in Pakistan

Monday, February 25th, 2008

Pakistan is facing a most defining moment in its history with serious implications to US security interests in the region. As stated in earlier analyses, the United States should have long ago adopted alternative approaches to Pakistan. It did not, and consequently, the situation in Pakistan today is much more dangerous. It is not, however, too late for the United States to re-engage more effectively. Here are some of the things it may consider doing:

Background
Since 9/11, US strategy in Pakistan has been essentially built on two pillars: President Musharraf and Pakistan’s armed forces. Washington’s sole reliance on Musharraf and the military that he controlled had blind sighted US policy makers about the rising influence of the Taliban within Pakistan. For several years, Benazir Bhutto had tried unsuccessfully to draw Washington’s attention to the pervasive actions of a group within Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) that she referred to as the “Core.” Indeed, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has been divided over its cooperation with Washington in the war on terror, because many in the ISI consider the Taliban as their own “baby” or asset. Why should they undermine the Taliban? From their perspective, this will cause more instability in the northwestern part of Pakistan and will deny Pakistan a powerful card with the potential for long term influence in neighboring Afghanistan. This has over the past several years enabled the Taliban to increase their influence in Pakistan and pose greater challenge to Musharraf’s leadership, culminating in the siege of the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad last July. Ever since, the government’s power has been eroding fast and the military subjected to increased attacks by the Taliban and its radical allies. Unrest in many parts of the country and Musharraf’s abuses of power led to a popular revolt and culminated with parliamentary elections that brought to power the opposition led Pakistan’s People Party (PPP) of Asif Zardari (Bhutto’s husband) and the Pakistan Muslim League (N) of Nawaz Sahrif.

President Musharraf
If President Musharraf insists on staying in power, Pakistan will face a period of political paralysis and instability which will benefit the Taliban and their radical allies. Washington needs a more stable Pakistan in order to prosecute more effectively its war against terror. Musharraf may be persuaded to peacefully step down if offered certain guarantees regarding his future. Washington may be able to help broker such an agreement between Musharraf and the two key leaders of the opposition, Zardari and Sharif. While Zardari is more amenable to such an agreement, getting Sharif on board will require some maneuvering. The Saudis may be of assistance on this front.

Washington’s Dilemma
The new parliamentary majority led by the PPP and the PML (N) is united in its efforts to put an end to Musharraf’s rule and repair the damage done by Musharraf to the judiciary, but has no unified position vis-à-vis the war on terror, posing a major dilemma to the United Sates. Let me explain.

Sharif will challenge Pakistan’s current relationship with Washington and its cooperation in the war on terror in order to increase support among Pakistanis for his PML (N) party. The war on terror is very controversial to Muslims in Pakistan and is one that Sarrif can successfully exploit to his advantage while pushing Zardari to “take sides”. The PPP will ultimately have to go along with Sharif in order to avoid being accused of serving Washington’s interests at the expense of Pakistan’s. This will weaken if not disrupt Pakistan’s cooperation with Washington in the war on terror. On the other hand, any confrontation between the PPP and the PML (N) on the issue of the war of terror will lead to political paralysis and possible unrest in the country. Internal instability will serve the interests of the Taliban and its radical allies and will represent a major setback to US security interests in the region. Whichever way relations develop between thee PPP and the PML (N), Washington has to be very seriously concerned.

Reshaping the War on Terror
The current political conditions in Pakistan as described above pose a major challenge to Washington’s war on terror, but present also a unique opportunity for the United States to turn the page on a failing policy and usher in a more successful one. Washington’s new strategy should be built on four pillars:

Undermining the Taliban
Washington should borrow a chapter from Genral Petraeus book in Iraq. The Taliban draw their support primarily from the Pashtuns. Neither Zardari, who is a Sindhi, nor Sharif, who is a Punjabi, is a Pashtun. Washington’s military assistance should focus on recruiting tribal Pashtun leaders and arming them to fight the Taliban while simultaneously providing financial and social services to those areas.

Shifting Assistance
Washington should reach out to the PPP and PML (N) with an enhanced economic assistance package to Pakistan. The nature of the debate within Pakistan about the latter’s relationship with Washington must change. Currently and increasingly, the debate is shaped by the perception that Pakistan’s relationship with the US is centered on waging a war against terror while causing great harm to Pakistan’s internal stability and national interests. By minimizing the talk about the war on terror and increasing in meaningful ways its economic assistance to Pakistan, Washington can affect more positively the debate on Pakistan-US relations.

Reforming the ISI
Washington should engage the new majority to assist them in reforming the ISI. Both Zardari and Sharif have had a bad history of experiences with the ISI and would welcome Washington’s assistance in this matter.

Afghanistan
Washington should focus much more aggressively on curbing the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan employing successful counter-insurgency tactics. The Afghani-Pakistani theatres are intimately connected with deteriorating conditions in one theatre having a direct negative impact on conditions in the other.

Balancing Security & Convenience in Amtrak Travel

Monday, February 25th, 2008

As an avid supporter and lover of train travel and having spent most of my career securing and protecting the nation’s assets, I was very pleased with the Amtrak announcement of some increased level of security screening procedures. Based on the materials I have read, I do not expect these new measures to slow the process of boarding the trains. This – coupled with the announcement from the Transportation Security Administration that it expects to continue sporadic deployments to stations around the country – should be a solid deterrent to those who may try a new way to cause our great Nation harm.

If nothing else, it is certainly worth a trial to see if these new security measures negatively impacts train travel. Like many travelers, I enjoy the ease and freedom of train travel and so I recognize trying to achieve the balance of security with openness is a big challenge. Let us all hope that they achieve that balance. I will be on the train again next week, so all the best to Amtrak and TSA.

Still not understanding the “Blackwater problem”

Friday, February 22nd, 2008

It is interesting to see that the Grand Jury investigation into the Sep 16 shootings by Blackwater continues. What is equally interesting is that following the rush of knee-jerk reactions in Congress to throw legislation at the problem that ‘closed the loophole’ by including contractors to the State Department to the Military Jurisdiction Expeditionary Act, which apparently meant that all contractors would now be covered and accountable under US law. Unfortunately, having satisfied themselves that all was now right with the world, the politicians and their staffs wrenched their arms out of their sockets patting themselves on the back for a job well done….if only that were so.

The strong lesson to be learnt here, which unfortunately will be learnt the hard way, is that the law only covers those companies that are employed by the Government. The attorneys trying to prosecute the September 16 shootings are going to try and prove that although Blackwater was employed by the State Department, the company was acting in support of a military mission. I acknowledge that the law is an ass, but even so – the lawyers are going to be making the argument in a US Court that US foreign policy is led by the military and supported by the political effort, not the other way round; this very rich seam has yet to be mined by the political commentators, but it very much deserves to be.

The military acts in support of the political intent. The State Department pursues that intent, and is supported in doing so in Iraq by the military. In a document passed to the Investigatory Staff of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee in early September, I clearly stated the damage that PMCs did to the political, diplomatic and military intent of the US in places like Iraq; September 16 was unwelcome proof of my argument. While the lawmakers’ knee-jerk reactions closed the door, apparently, on misconduct by government-employed companies, it makes no real allowances for those companies that are not acting in support of the government. Yet there are many PMCs that do not hold a government contract at all. Naysayers will point out that the Iraqi Government is responsible for these PMCs, but for a long time the Iraqi Government was too immature to address the issue.

This is a lesson for the future that Congress apparently refuses to learn: PMCs must be accountable from day one, and there must be a system to assure quality. As yet, there is nothing to do either, and unfortunately the next unwelcome lesson will be the employees of an unregulated PMC somewhere doing something is politically hugely counter-productive and that compromises the US’ intent abroad in so many ways, and the Congress will again re-enter the knee-jerk phase.

The US Congress must put in place a system to control the quality of PMCs that have any dealings with the US, and that may affect the US’ ability to achieve its political, diplomatic and military intent. A licensing scheme, operated by a Commission or equivalent body with contributed expertise from the military, Department of Justice and the industry, is the best way of achieving this.

A Lesson Forgotten – A Preparation Mocked

Thursday, February 21st, 2008

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly we are to forget the lessons learned from our darkest tragedies, even the most recent ones.

Last night, the Defense Department, via the USS Lake Erie fired a SM-3 missile to intercept a broken spy satellite from the sky rather than letting it break apart in the atmosphere and leave hazardous debris to fall back to the Earth.  Because the mission appears to have gone off seamlessly and demonstrated the success of our technological and military prowess, some people looking for humor out of the event have found a tried and true foil to focus their attention on.  In their crosshairs — the US Department of Homeland Security and in particular the role that FEMA played in this first of its kind mission.

It may seem odd to think of DHS and FEMA playing a role in taking out an out of control satellite but it was a valuable one whether you believe it or not.

In the days prior to missile launch, FEMA engaged in a number of preemptory actions which involved sending a memo to first responders around the country that contained tips about handling the threats associated with space debris re-entry. It also set up a plan to deploy a number of task forces in the event of a crisis situation.

Rather than applaud and support such forward thinking and action, some have used this as another opportunity to make FEMA a punch line or accuse it of acting like Chicken Little crying out to the nation, ‘The sky is falling!’

Caught up in what has become almost an chronic obsession with mocking FEMA, the media and most of  the general public has apparently forgotten the lessons we learned following the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.

Five years ago, I was one of thousands at NASA working to respond to what was a profoundly heartbreaking but equally dangerous situation.

On the morning of Saturday, February 1, 2003, Columbia was returning to Earth following a nearly flawless 16-day science mission but upon re-entry, the spacecraft suffering a breach in the leading edge of one of its wings was destroyed killing the seven-person crew.  As the Agency came to grips with the immediate shock of the accident and worked to find what answers we could, NASA began to issue immediate warnings through the media and to the public safety personnel in Texas and Louisiana warning them to avoid any and all contact with the Shuttle debris.

When the realization hit home that Columbia would not be safely landing at Kennedy Space Center and word of debris contrails over the skies of Texas started coming into 911 Call Centers and media reports, then NASA Administrator, Sean O’Keefe called newly installed Cabinet DHS Secretary, Tom Ridge to discuss the situation.  Ridge and his new Department had been on the job only seven days having opened their doors on January 24, 2003.  The Columbia tragedy, something unforeseen by NASA, or the organizers of DHS, had become the first national ‘event’ to occur under its watch.

Ridge pledged the Department’s full support and assistance to the response and recovery efforts and from that point forward, FEMA gave only its most exemplary service to NASA and to the residents of Texas and Louisiana where Columbia had fallen.  From the moment they got involved, FEMA, working with NASA immediately issued guidance to first responders assisting in the recovery efforts, cautioning them not to touch any shuttle debris because it was potentially hazardous.

Of greatest concern in the immediate aftermath of the shuttle accident was anyone coming into contact with the spacecraft’s hydrazine tanks. Given the explosiveness and toxicity of hydrazine, exposure, even in small levels could be fatal to anyone who comes in contact with it.  Because of their construction, shape and design, it was determined early on the day of the accident that there was a very high probability that the tanks could survive re-entry.  They did.

While the majority of the shuttle broke apart and burned up in the Earth’s atmosphere, the tanks survived re-entry relatively intact.  Because it was near the end of the 16-day mission, the tanks were nearly empty of their toxic fuel but when they were discovered by residents and first responders of Texas and Louisiana, there were still enough traces of hydrazine to warrant concern and HAZMAT Teams were used to recover them.

As a result of the warnings and assistance that FEMA and many others offered to first responders and the residents of Texas and Louisiana, (and the benevolence of God), no one was killed or injured by any of the debris or the recovery operations in the immediate days afterward.  The debris recovery operations would go on for months afterwards and collected millions of pieces strewn over hundreds of miles.  Tragically two months after the Columbia accident, a helicopter team aiding the debris recovery efforts and searchers on the ground crashed killing two and severely injuring three others.

Despite what critics and comics may say, FEMA’s memo to first responders regarding the possible satellite debris was absolutely the right thing to do. While the satellite may have been shot out of the sky over the Pacific, there was a chance (albeit an incredibly remote one) that hazardous debris could fall some where and cause a danger.  One can only imagine if the missile shot had missed and the spy satellite had fallen into the atmosphere with over 1,000 pounds of deadly hydrazine and other debris hurtling Earthward what the reaction might have been had FEMA done nothing to prepare communities for the disaster.  As an ‘All-Hazards’ agency, its their job to share their insights and experiences for any prospective emergency, regardless of how remote a possibility an event might be so we can all be better prepared.  And I’m pretty sure falling toxic space debris easily qualifies under ‘all-hazards.’

Ridiculing FEMA and calling their actions a waste of taxpayer funds is nothing short of an idiotic, juvenile cheap shot by arm-chair quarterbacks who think they know it all.  They don’t and I’m glad they aren’t running our county’s emergency management either.

If you talk to the residents who live in Texas and Louisiana who dealt firsthand with dangerous debris turning up in their backyards, streets, parking lots and fields, I’m sure they haven’t forgotten the lessons learned from the Columbia accident and neither has FEMA.  But it looks like a lot of other people have…

Small Boat, Big Threat

Wednesday, February 20th, 2008

 

Threat is found in all sorts of places and even in the smallest of places such as small boats. These craft come in all shapes and sizes, from smaller pleasure craft all the way to speedboats, and a thousand other private and commercial platforms. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security faces a difficult task in trying to track, control and mitigate the risks posed by the millions of small boats that regularly operate in U.S. waters. Small boats pose a serious threat to U.S. coastlines from possible smuggling of material and terrorists. Now there are efforts being made to install tracking devices on small boats.

The meaning of a “small-boat threat” includes a variety of possible weapon-delivery vehicles, tactics, and payloads. An attack could involve suicide bombers, as in the case of the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 that was harbored in the Yemeni port of Aden. Also, improvised explosive devices could be easily delivered or emplaced by boats or swimmers.

Congress and the Administration should invest in assets that improve the overall security of the maritime domain. In particular, the risk associated with boats is “complex.” Therefore, in order to keep our nation safe, free, and prosperous, Congress must take a long-term view of the small-boats threat.

Some recommendations include:

• Address economic competitiveness
• Insist on programs that best enhance the overall security of the maritime domain
• Invest more in Coast Guard modernization

In order to address the small boat threat, the U.S. should develop plans to improve U.S. situational awareness and protect the sector that serves as a source of enjoyment and work for millions of Americans. Read more in “Small Boats, Big Worries: Thwarting Terrorist Attacks from the Sea.”

Did Trial Lawyer Lobby Trump National Security?

Monday, February 18th, 2008

Columnist Bob Novak offers some interesting observations about the connection between the Democrats’ decision to let the FISA reform expire rather than offering a house vote, suggesting that the power of the trial lawyers within the Democratic Party was too powerful to overcome:

The recess by House Democrats amounts to a judgment that losing the generous support of trial lawyers, the Democratic Party’s most important financial base, would be more dangerous than losing the anti-terrorist issue to Republicans. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed against the phone companies for giving individuals’ personal information to intelligence agencies without a warrant. Mike McConnell, the nonpartisan director of national intelligence, says delay in congressional action deters cooperation in detecting terrorism.

The Devil Unseen — Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Returning Iraq War Vets

Monday, February 18th, 2008

The New York Times carried a recent report on the prevalence of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a contributing factor to crimes committed by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. PTSD is used not as explanation but in mitigation – to explain a crime, not excuse it. This is leading to the merits of the war being debated in courthouses across the country. Of equal note is the lack of due diligence, or perhaps selective reporting, that the NYT has demonstrated in this series of reports, failing to mention that rather than veterans being a bunch of murdering thugs, for their demographic and even taking into account PTSD they are about 5 times less likely to commit murder, a case for which was made by Ralph Peters in the New York Post.

Of greater concern to me is the failure to capture the effects of PTSD within communities, but let me focus for a second on the New York Times’ articles. That there is a PTSD problem is of great concern, and should be of great concern to all. Whilst the NY Times and I will never see eye to eye on soldiers serving in Iraq, war in general and the use of force in particular (and bear in mind I run a company that advocates the, “Professional and appropriate use of force,”) I believe that the implications and perceptual shift used here was both underhanded and inappropriate for a national and internationally recognised newspaper.

Whilst I am not keen to become a commentator on the rights of newspapers to report the facts in the manner they see fit, I do feel that an internationally recognised press symbol has abused its position by failing to support the soldiers, regardless of whether it supports the war. In my recce platoon we used to adhere by the adage, “Expect the worst, hope for the best.” I think I must have forgotten that with regard to the NYT – I should have simply expected the worst.

PTSD is a terrible psychological affliction, that can cause gradual but significant change in behaviour (drinking, aggression, other personality changes) or suddenly overcome someone, leading to a completely out-of-character act such as aggression or murder due to a flashback. Unsurprisingly, PTSD can play a part in the crimes committed by veterans, and as a mitigating factor by defence lawyers.

The psychological effect in each of these cases is for the psychiatrists, medical experts and ultimately the legal apparatus to decide. My concern is that the crimes demonstrate that the federal safety net in place to catch and treat sufferers is not effective, and that merely educating the soldiers themselves is not working. PTSD is a legitimate threat to anyone who has served in combat or experienced conditions of high stress. Knowing that, and mixing alcohol, loaded weapons and an aggravating situation is a recipe for disaster.

Whilst I regret any loss of life, I feel beholden to point out that if someone is stupid enough to confront someone who is drunk, angry and carrying a pistol, that there is the possibility of getting shot – whilst the murder is clearly wrong, such a confrontation is also an act of extreme Darwinism and that it was murder isn’t going to help when you’re dead. Those who have served in places of Iraq know the cheapness of life, and our internal control mechanisms are based on more finely honed, more aggressive self-control mechanisms; pulling a trigger is a lot easier the hundredth time than the first, we just control ourselves more in order not to do it. PTSD is, I suspect, in some instances the momentary failure of those control mechanisms as the perceived threat goes back to an Iraq, not Boise, Idaho, level. This is why local, state and federal governments, and communities, must aggressively acknowledge this problem, and accept the possibility of its existence within their areas of responsibility before it happens so that they are prepared.

There must be further education to both veterans of noticing and recognising the symptoms. At the same time, there must be legal guidelines on PTSD and its use in trials; clearly there is the opportunity to abuse this problem, which denigrates and potentially disadvantages the legitimate suffers. As much as I hate to advocate legal federalism, the serious crimes committed by veterans where PTSD may be used as a defence or mitigation perhaps should be removed to a federal forum, given that the PTSD arguably resulted from a federal action.

This is, to a great extent, a problem of federal making that suggests that both the government and local communities have not grasped the importance of post-combat care, and we must address these veteran-care issues more aggressively for those who need it.

The Death of Imad Mughniyah: A Turning Point in Terrorism?

Sunday, February 17th, 2008

The assassination of the elusive Mughniyah on February 12 could be a major turning point in the Middle East – but in what direction? The answer to that question depends heavily on identifying who was behind the assassination.

Israel?

If Hezbollah truly believes that Israel was behind his assassination, then we will witness a major operational shift in Hezbollah’s conflict with Israel. Let me explain.

Following the period of bombings (which included the American Embassy and Marines compound in Lebanon) and kidnappings of western hostages in the eighties for which Mughniyah was chiefly responsible, Hezbollah changed its modus operandi by restricting its operations to Israeli military targets within the Lebanese theatre. It adopted a tit-for-tat approach in its response to Israeli actions.

Following the assassination of Hezbollah’s leader Abbas al-Musawi in 1992 by Israeli forces, a shadowy group by the name of Islamic Jihad orchestrated the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Mughniyah was reportedly responsible for that act of terror. The bombing was a clear message to Israel that Hezbollah would not tolerate Israel’s policy of targeted assassinations and, unlike the Palestinians, Hezbollah would respond much more forcefully.

Ever since the Buenos Aires bombings, the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah remained contained within the Lebanese theatre and focused on military targets. The assassination of Mughniyah in Damascus, Syria, changes everything. Hezbollah will go after Israeli targets anywhere in the world thus inviting Israeli retaliation.

This may easily escalate into an all out war between Israel and Hezbollah, especially that each side feels the need to “settle” the unfinished business of the summer 2006 war. An open war between Israel and Hezbollah not limited to the Lebanese theatre of operations may have catastrophic consequences on peace and stability in the region. In a best case scenario, it will dramatically reverse the security gains achieved by the surge in Iraq, heighten tensions with Iran, and possibly increase Syria’s involvement in Lebanon. In a worst case scenario, a regional devastating war may erupt with all key players drawn into it.

Syria?

Several voices accused Syria of involvement in Mughniyah’s assassination. Let us analyze this possibility by asking the key question: what would Syria gain from such an act?

Some claim that Syria carried out the assassination just two days before a major anti-Syrian rally were to take place in downtown Beirut to commemorate the assassination of Prime Minster Hariri and to shore up support for the Beirut government in order to steal the initiative and thunder away from its Beirut detractors. There is no doubt that Hezbollah’s rally in Beirut to mourn Mughniyah overshadowed the pro-government rally and increased the level of anxiety among the Lebanese. But would Syria jeopardize its alliance with Hezbollah and Iran for such a minor gain?

Most astute observers of the region dismiss this accusation as part of a psychological campaign aimed at Syria that will have no impact. If that were Syria’s true aim, then, Syrian intelligence could have easily orchestrated a fake assassination of Mughniyah with the full knowledge of key Iranian and Hezbollah leaders. After all, very few people knew what Mughniyah really looked like. There were only a couple of photographs of him and he had reportedly undergone several plastic surgeries to change his appearance. Although such a scenario is a bit far fetched, conspiracy theories in the region would salivate over this!

If, however, Syria’s alleged role in the assassination were to be taken seriously and be validated, then Syria’s involvement would represent a major turning point. What better way to send a powerful signal to the United States that Syria was willing to change course?

Mughniyah’s assassination brings closure to that chapter of terrorism, which had targeted the United States during the eighties. If that were the case, the assassination would present a turning point in a totally different direction. The possibility of Syrian involvement, however, raises two more questions: was the assassination condoned by Iran and Hezbollah, and if so, were they too sending a message? If not, would this constitute a “crack” in the Syria-Hezbollah-Iran axis? These are interesting questions that require serious consideration.

Whether the new direction in the region is more conflict and violence or a new opening for constructive dialogue, Mughniyah’s assassination is definitely a turning point in the state of affairs of the Middle East.

Why Are We Continually Surprised by School Shootings?

Friday, February 15th, 2008

The reactions of most students attending Northern Illinois University is surprise: “We see these tragedies on TV, I never thought it could happen here.”

Virginia Tech, Delaware State, Seton Hall University … all evidence that these events do happen, and are happening with increasing frequency.

One of the most important assignments in which I have participated since my retirement from the Department of Homeland Security was to contribute to the “Virginia Tech After-Action Report” ordered by the State of Virginia.The company for which I work (SES Resources International) was tasked with putting together a blue ribbon panel, empowered by Governor Tim Kaine, to draw upon the expertise and experience of high-ranking law enforcement officials at the state, local and federal level to analyze what took place (and, equally important, what did not take place) on the Virginia Tech campus, and to review the preliminary recommendations of the VT panel.

This included members of the NYPD, FBI, ATF, New York State Police, New York State DHS, Nassau and Suffolk County (NY), Union County (NJ), US Marshals Service and local University Security Departments.

Despite our diverse experiences at varying levels of state and federal law enforcement, we were able to agree on some significant conclusions.

It should come as no surprise that many attended this meeting to not only contribute to the VT Report, but to learn from others on the panel and in attendance about “best practice” methods to avoid, eliminate, contain, control, and respond to school shootings.

Why? Because all of us believed that these tragic events occur more frequently than the general public realizes – and that they will continue to occur. They will continue to occur on college campuses. They will continue to occur on high school campuses. And, yes, they will continue to occur at elementary schools … Especially if certain steps aren’t taken.

Although much of the discussion at this law enforcement summit focused on the specifics of the Virginia Tech tragedy, it became immediately apparent certain lessons could be applied more broadly to other school facilities.

Primary among those lessons was that advance planning is required, and that no two school campus security and safety plans should look alike. Preparations, training and programs instituted to eliminate, control and respond to school shootings or other violence requires unique circumstances specific to the school and environment they are intended to protect.

No one plan fits all. What will work in Virginia Tech, which is an open rural campus, may not work at Columbia University, which is set in a more urban and closed environment.

However, regardless of how the plans must be drawn up and the training implemented, one conclusion was conspicuous and consistent: Advance plans, preparation and training are critical to all school facilities.

We cannot control the motives or demons that afflict mass shooters, but we can control the environment to a degree. This means that schools must think broadly. Preparation and training is not only critical to campus and local law enforcement; all potentially involved individuals — to include students, faculty, administration and staff, contractors, etc., should be included in such plans.

No one can afford to be surprised by this kind of tragedy again in the future. As hard as it is to acknowledge, the truth is that such violence can and may happen “here.” And “here” can be anywhere.

Although no plan guarantees complete safety, every school needs to implement an audit of its security practices and self-inspect its “response” plans. Again, no one plan fits all, and by all, that includes the dynamics of students, faculty, administration, and most importantly security personnel. Rather than pretending that tragedies cannot visit your campus, it’s time to bring all members of a school’s community together and acknowledge that it just might. And then talk openly about how to respond should the unthinkable occur.

America cannot combat 9/11 threats with pre-9/11 tools

Friday, February 15th, 2008

Today, the House of Representatives is in recess. And, yet, today marks a critical deadline for our national security infrastructure. Today, the Protect America Act expires, sending the Intelligence Community back to the technological Stone Age in trying to track the ever illusive and rapidly moving terrorist threats against our country. By refusing to update the current FISA regulations, Congress is subjecting the Intel Community to an antiquated law dating back to the 1970’s and which doesn’t take into account the technology we take for granted today.

Remember the 70’s? You probably didn’t have a laptop or cell phone, and it wasn’t because you couldn’t afford it; it was because they weren’t available. In the 70’s, “disposable” cell phones were not even envisioned by most Americans and the ability to sit in a coffee shop and communicate on the Internet through a wireless modem was, for most Americans, akin to landing on the moon – something the government might do with Herculean effort, but certainly not for the common man.

The reality, however, is that such technologies are now commonplace and available to everyone around the world. In fact, the availability of cheap, disposable cell phones, the growth of the internet, and the emergence of a rapid and complex global telecommunications infrastructure that can phone calls anywhere in the world has allowed a level of anonymity that terrorists have quickly learned to exploit to mask their plans and operations. This is the context in which the debate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) must be conducted.

Put simply, what was good in the 70’s is not good enough today when it comes to our national security. In my experience, when you get away from the lobbyists and the lawyers, the American people expect an Intelligence Community that is armed with the tools to operate effectively within today’s and tomorrow’s environment…not one that is 30 years old!

The Senate finally took the step to pass a bill making needed changes to the FISA permanent, including retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that are being subjected to lawsuits from civil liberty groups for supposedly cooperating with the government in protecting our nation against terrorists. This was not an easy vote for some Senators in this politically charged presidential election year. In fact, one of the leading candidates abstained from the vote.

And, right now, the House of Representatives chambers are silent after Democrats decided to leave Washington for a week’s recess. This abdication of responsibility is appalling in light of the threats that do not take recess in their efforts against the United States and its interest.

House Leader Says no urgency to FISA reauthorization

Thursday, February 14th, 2008

The Majority Leader of the House Democrats summed up the rather mystifying position of his colleagues today when he stated on the House floor that they have no sense of urgency over the FISA wiretapping debate. One senses that Hoyer didn’t fully appreciate the irony of such a statement, considering how Congress has dithered on FISA reauthorization to the point where it is set to expire in a couple of days.

Led by Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller earlier this week, the Senate debated FISA, passed reauthorization, and sent the bill to the House. Instead of resolving the dispute with their counterparts in the Senate over whether to give immunity to telecommunications communities that cooperated with the federal government, members of the House want instead to employ a Serial Extension strategy. That is, instead of voting up or down on whether the intelligence community should be able to wiretap foreign individuals under suspicion for terrorist activity (regardless of whether the call originated in the United States or not), the House is seeking to have it both ways by simply not taking a position. Pass an “extension” of the previous authorization, as they have already done. Then pass another. And who knows, another and another?

Facing pressure to act, Hoyer took to the floor to declare: “There is no urgency.” Indeed.

Hoyer claims that the President is “categorically” wrong when he says that by not acting, the House puts American national security at risk. He says that the old FISA rules are still in place. Yes, he is referring to the ones that existed prior to September 11th, when terrorists veritably idled by the noses of American intelligence and law enforcement to kill thousands of Americans on American soil. The only thing that is “categorical” in this tragic story is an understanding that the old ways of doing things are no longer sufficient.

But, you know, as the Honorable Rep. Hoyer says: What’s the urgency?

Senate Does the Right Thing with FISA Passage

Wednesday, February 13th, 2008

Yesterday, the Senate did the right thing by passing the Protect America Act and preventing our nation’s private sector national security partners from being left unprotected from frivolous lawsuits, today. It is now up to the House to recognize that without these partners our intelligence and national security communities will ultimately grind to a halt. The private sector brings to bear the innovation, skilled labor and hard work of millions of people every day in the name of our nation’s security.

The political machinations in Congress are not lost on the hundreds of companies who work with our armed forces and intelligence communities to keep us safe. If we do not stand up for our private sector national security partners now, we can expect fewer companies to expose themselves to litigation on behalf of a country that needs their talents in the decades to come.

TSA Taps Seven Airports for Employee Screening Programs

Tuesday, February 12th, 2008

A key development in the aviation security arena occurred yesterday when TSA formally announced the seven airports that will take part in airport employee screening pilot tests as required by the Omnibus Appropriations Act passed by Congress in January 2008. In the formal TSA announcement, TSA Administrator Kip Hawley said that “[t]hese pilots will give us important information as we evaluate the best way to secure the operations side of the airport. We appreciate the support of Congress and our security partners at the airports and look forward to working with them to implement our findings.” TSA also said that the use of multiple security measures will enable TSA to evaluate the most effective manner of screening airport employees. Airport employees and other employees including concession workers who have access to secure areas of the airports will be screened before they can enter those areas.

Airports Council International – North America, along with aviation industry groups such as AAAE, ATA, IATA, CAA, NATA and several other stakeholders worked together over the past several months with TSA to develop and roll-out an employee screening pilot test program.

The seven pilot test airports are Boston’s Logan International, Denver International, Jacksonville (Fla.) International, Kansas City (Mo.) International, Eugene (Ore.), Southwest Oregon Regional (North Bend, Ore.) and Craven Regional (New Bern, N.C.). TSA will pilot various screening techniques for 90 days at each airport. The legislation mandates 100 percent employee screening be evaluated at three airports and alternative employee screening at four other airports.

In its press release, TSA noted that it worked closely with airport stakeholder groups to develop the program and criteria for airport participation. TSA also referred to the joint ACI-NA/AAAE survey where “[m]ore than 100 airports expressed interest in participating in the pilots scheduled to begin in May.” Additionally, TSA said that airports were selected, in part, to ensure that those of different sizes are represented.

The ACI site has a breakdown of the pilot tests as far as where they will be conducted and what kinds of screening techniques will be used.

The aforementioned Omnibus Appropriations Act provided up to $15 million for these employee screening programs. TSA is required to report to Congress before September 1, 2008 on the cost and effectiveness of the pilot programs at each airport. There is no doubt that the report will play a critical role in determining what steps Congress takes in the future in regards to this issue.

Keeping Public Order When There Is Appetite for None

Tuesday, February 12th, 2008

The Pakistani elections are in seven days, and both enthusiasm and tensions are rising. A straightforward election in a country with demonstrative crowds can be difficult enough to manage, but the Pakistani election is complicated by a terrorist interventions, the very present spectre of the assassinated Benazir Bhutto, the autocratic-like actions of President Musharraf and the Q League, a sidelined and rebellious legal profession and the US Government’s very clear interest in stability in Pakistan. The Washington Post today reported that the oppositions may receive two thirds of the vote – if that does not happen, for whatever reason, violence is very likely to ensue.

From a public order perspective overlaid over the other concerns are questions about how the Pakistani police and military are going to be deployed and used during the election process, and what their own motivations are. Do they consider themselves tied to the present government or simply members of the government who are subservient to the people’s will? Will they participate in bolstering the Musharraf regime, or in toppling it?

The police and military are almost always seen as the symbols of the current government, and their actions over the next week will have a significant influence on events in Pakistan – many believe that if the Shah’s police and military had a better method of dealing with Public Order then they would have not been the blue touch paper of that revolution; that same risk exists here.

The effective management of Public Order is intended to give people the opportunity to make their feelings felt, to make clear their objections, and to try to cause change through ideally non-violent means. If violence ensues, public order management has ensured that the violence takes place within a context where the police are prepared to deal with it in a manner than optimises the chances of effective resolution, of the least damaging events that threaten violent regime change and anarchy.

At this time, an independent and effective police force would already have planned its responses to the crowds, put in place the plans to shape the crowds into the areas of their choosing where legitimate demonstrations can take place, and be contained if they threaten good order. They should be engaging with the community, with those who are likely to inspire and drive the crowds at the local level, in order to create an understanding. Of course, all this is in the ideal world, but the ideal world is not as far away as some might think. In situations such as this, where the potential for accidental loss of life, international political and media pressure and national turmoil, it comes down to the local level police to create the conditions for effective but safe demonstrations, which is in everyone’s interests. We can only hope that the Pakistani police feel the same way.

©2008 Adfero Group. All Rights Reserved.