2008 April | Security Debrief - a blog of homeland security news and analysis

Archive for April, 2008

Heritage to Host Cargo Security Forum

Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

The Heritage Foundation will host next week a forum on cargo security entitled Homeland Security and Inspecting Shipping Containers: Debating the Way Forward. Two of Security Debrief’s contributors will participate – former DHS Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson, who is also now head of the Safe Commerce Coalition, and Dr. James Carafano, who is the senior fellow for foreign policy, homeland security and counter-terrorism issues at the Foundation. Below is the logistical information.

You can RSVP for the Cargo Security Event here.

Homeland Security and Inspecting Shipping Containers: Debating the Way Forward

In 2006, Congress created the Secure Freight Initiative, an initiative test screening all shipping container cargo bound for the United States at a handful of selected ports. Last year Congress passed the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, mandating the inspection of all U.S. bound containers from all overseas ports. This April, the Department of Homeland Security is expected to report to Congress on the status of the Secure Freight Initiative. Now is an ideal time to discuss the potential implications of the report on the future of container security.

Join us as our expert panelists debate how the report should be interpreted, and what must be done to move forward. Panelists include:

Moderator:

James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
Assistant Director,
Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis
Institute for International Studies,
The Heritage Foundation

Panelists:

The Honorable Asa Hutchinson
Chairman,
Safe Commerce Coalition

Brian Goebel
President and CEO,
Sentinel HS Group

Denise Krepp
Senior Counsel,
Majority Staff,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security

Michal Freedhoff, Ph.D.
Senior Policy Associate,
U.S. Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA)

Tags: cargo security, maritime security, port security, transporation security
Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Maritime & Seaport Security, Supply Chain Security, Transportation Security | Comments

Veteran Agent to Be Named Nation’s Top Drug Cop

Tuesday, April 29th, 2008

Recently, I learned that President Bush will name Michele Leonhart as the Administration’s nominee to be the permanent head of the Drug Enforcement Administration. The President’s decision to name such a worthy and dedicated public servant to the post should be commended.

Having previously served in the same position, I can attest to the challenging and important nature of the role that Leonhart will fulfill. The DEA acts as an anchor in the nation’s overall law enforcement efforts. Now, more than ever as we strengthen our borders and improve homeland security in a post 9/11 world, we need strong leadership from those who have been fighting the fight on the ground level, day in and day out. The men and women who risk their lives to make our streets safer deserve the type of competent, balanced leadership that Leonhart will bring.

Leonhart – who served as the DEA’s Number Two before former Administrator Karen Tandy left late last year- brings an insider’s perspective from years on the front lines of the drug war as a long-time police officer and DEA field agent. After leading the DEA’s efforts in both the San Francisco and Los Angeles Field Offices as the Special Agent in Charge, Leonhart made the tough but admirable decision to leave the field and take an important leadership role at headquarters where she has proven herself time and again.

I commend President Bush’s decision to renew our commitment to fighting drugs by appointing such a solid candidate in Leonhart, and urge the Senate to once again exercise sound judgment by confirming her to the position in a timely manner.

Tags: Law Enforcement
Posted in Law Enforcement | Comments

CQ Addresses Growing Vulnerability in Deaf Community

Tuesday, April 29th, 2008

Recently, CQ’s Dan Fowler wrote an in-depth investigative analysis on the rather abrupt end to a Gulf Coast program providing emergency alerts to deaf and blind citizens because of a lack of continued funding from FEMA . The Deaf Link pilot program provided critical services to over 2,500 subscribers in three states, but was deemed as too costly to continue by some officials. Earlier in the week, Security DeBrief contributor Rich Cooper had addressed the injustice of not maintaining an emergency alert system that is capable of reaching all members of the American people – including those in the deaf community – in his piece The Forgotten Portion of “We the People” that had an accompanying American Sign Language translation in a YouTube video.

Tags: emergency preparedness
Posted in Emergency Preparedness & Response | Comments

Jimmy Carter Sleepwalking Through History

Monday, April 28th, 2008

The below excerpt is from former President Jimmy Carter’s column today in the New York Times. He seems genuinely befuddled as to why Americans are upset with him for going off on his one-man Shadow State Department trip to hold photo-ops with Hamas. In a bizarre effort to explain himself, he notes that the United States also refused to negotiate with communist guerrillas in Nepal but that didn’t stop him and Foggy Bottom South at the Carter Center from plowing defiantly forward:

About 12 years ago, Maoist guerrillas took up arms in an effort to overthrow the monarchy and change the nations political and social life. Although the United States declared the revolutionaries to be terrorists, the Carter Center agreed to help mediate among the three major factions: the royal family, the old-line political parties and the Maoists.

In 2006, six months after the oppressive monarch was stripped of his powers, a cease-fire was signed. Maoist combatants laid down their arms and Nepalese troops agreed to remain in their barracks. Our center continued its involvement and nations though not the United States and international organizations began working with all parties to reconcile the dispute and organize elections.

The Maoists are succeeding in achieving their major goals: abolishing the monarchy, establishing a democratic republic and ending discrimination against untouchables and others whose citizenship rights were historically abridged. After a surprising victory in the April 10 election, Maoists will play a major role in writing a constitution and governing for about two years. To the United States, they are still terrorists.

If Carter weren’t such a parody of himself, and the weak American foreign policy of his disastrous presidency, you’d be tempted to wonder whether he realizes that those other “Maoists,” you know of Mao’s China, also claimed to be ushering in a great new era of egalitarian utopia and people’s “democracy.” Just avert your eyes from the re-education camps and executions of political prisoners. Lenin, Stalin, Castro, and so nauseatingly on … all claimed to be standing up for those citizens whose rights were “historically abridged.” Just before they liquidated them all.

Mr. Carter’s revisionist history reminds one of the international bullying of Maoist China and the Soviet Union’s fearless invasion of Afghanistan under his presidency. It’s as if the former president is sleepwalking through history, in a lovely dream of righting all the wrongs he failed to right as president. What a nightmare for the rest of us.

Tags: foreign policy, Hamas, Ideology & Public Diplomacy
Posted in Ideology & Public Diplomacy | Comments

Is It Time for Law Enforcement to have a Vehicle Designed for Law Enforcement Operations?

Monday, April 28th, 2008

Criminal threats have evolved over the years. New responsibilities in a post-9/11 environment challenge law enforcement at the local, state and federal level. Emergency response capabilities are increasingly part of any street cop’s job. But the resource most critical for so many of these challenges—the patrol car—has never evolved to keep pace.

The car used by the vast majority of police officers — the Crown Vic — was designed back in the day of Saturday Night Fever and bell bottoms. This car wasn’t designed for the unique stresses and needs of law enforcement. It was designed for the same purpose as the Volkswagon Bug — to sell quickly and cheaply to regular consumers.

While the nation’s other first responders and public servants drive vehicles designed for the job, like fire trucks driven by the nation’s fire services, the 800,000 law enforcement first responders drive cars retrofitted with equipment. Can you imagine calling the fire department and seeing some guy in his pick-up truck pull up to your house with a hose welded into the back? Why then should the men and women who risk their lives to protect our neighborhoods every day be asked to go out in passenger vehicles with equipment welded awkwardly into place instead of a car designed to fit the needs of law enforcement?

This is an idea that is finally gaining steam. Prominent law enforcement and homeland security officials are lining up behind the notion of a purpose-built car.

“At the local, state and federal level, law enforcement is up against entirely new challenges that didn’t exist 30 years ago,” says Secretary Ridge, one of the backers of the next-generation police car. “That’s why we need to arm the men and women who protect our communities with the most up-to-date equipment.”

Carbon Motors, a new American automaker, is looking to change that. The company has spent years recruiting law enforcement to assist in the design of the car to create a vehicle specifically built for the needs of law enforcement. The company has recruited more than 1,000 cops to provide input on the design and resources needed.

Some of the features include:

* Designed to 250,000 mile durability specification
* Aluminum spaceframe body structure
* 75 mph rear impact crash capability
* Cockpit with fully-integrated factory fitted law enforcement equipment
* Integrated emergency lights, spot lights, take down lights, and directional stick
* Segment exclusive coach rear doors for safer suspect ingress and egress
* Optimized approach / departure angles and ground clearance
* NIJ Level III-A (or better) bullet protection (front doors and dash panel)
* Reverse backup camera
* Remote start capability
* Driver specific intelligent key
* 360 degree exterior surveillance capability
* Automatic license plate recognition system
* Video and audio surveillance of rear passenger compartment
* 130hz – 350hz bass siren
* Nightvision compliant interior illumination
* Integrated forward looking infrared system (FLIR)
* Integrated shotgun mounts
* Optimized storage capability (compartment and cargo)
* Integrated front and rear passenger compartment partition
* Hoseable rear passenger compartment
* Integrated push bumpers and PIT capability

Full disclosure: My firm, the Adfero Group, has agreed to work with Carbon Motors to raise awareness about the need for law enforcement to have the same kind of suitably designed car that can assist and protect them as their counterparts in other first-responder industries.

NYPD Acquittals No Justification for Failed Use of Force Policies

Friday, April 25th, 2008

This morning NYPD officers Isnora, Cooper and Oliver were acquitted of a battery of charges related to the death of Sean Bell.

The detectives stated that the shooting was the regrettable conclusion of a long chain of events, but that the actions they took outside the Queens nightclub were nonetheless justified. The prosecution argued that they acted irrationally – though their original intent on that night in November 2006 was to conduct vice-related arrests, the quickly found themselves in a situation far beyond their ability to control.

No verdict would satisfy everyone in New York.

I cannot pass judgement on what happened. To do so, I would have to have been there on the night in question, aware of what was about to transpire, to have heard what the detectives heard and seen what transpired afterwards. I was not, and will not question the operational decisions of the officers on the ground.

I can, however, comment on what I do know. Fifty rounds fired at a target that does not pose an immediate threat, is retreating and is more than a handful of feet away is not an appropriate or professional use of force for officers equipped with pistols. The officers believe they were acting to prevent a possible gang-related shooting, certainly a push-button topic for the urban community, but they were not equipped to do so, given the dangerous risks involved in engaging the target far outweighed the potential return. The detective were in no clear danger and had identified no clear threat, yet were nonetheless compelled to fire off dozens of rounds.

Two issues arise. When fifty rounds are fired by a group of officers at a target and only three of those rounds make contact, there are policy and training issues with use of force. The officers made an operational decision about a threat and a subsequent about engaging the target – a fleeting car that posed no immediate danger. Fifty rounds were fired, with three hits.

What is the NYPD’s policy governing the use of weapons? Is that policy mirrored in the training? Unfortunately, I suspect that there is a significant disconnect between policy and training, and one that exists regardless of the NYPD’s official stance on the shootings.

If the NYPD indicates that it does not support the shooting (and the talk of an internal investigation suggests this is the case), then it must accept that there is a lack of coherency across the use of force system. The Department’s policy, the legal opinions, the doctrine, the various capabilities (uniformed officers, detectives, special users such as SWAT-type units), the training and the equipment must all work together in a coordinated and cohesive fashion.

If the NYPD comes down on the other side of the issue, as appears to be the case here, there must be a systematic problem that must be identified and addressed. If there is no systematic problem, then only one, or perhaps two, officers would have fired. That is not the case here.

Understandably the pace of events was fast that evening. One has to wonder, why was there not heavier operational support called, and I assume the answer is time. The threat of a drive-by shooting surely called for a more coherent use of force strategy. If there were concerns that something like this was going to occur, is the prudent course for all concerned, particularly the officers involved, to have quick access to a more heavily armed response capability? I am appreciative of the system in use by most British constabularies, where the officers who do not, except in Northern Ireland, carry personal weapons, and those only for self-defence against the (not completely finished) terrorist threat. For these constabularies police response is the uniformed officers, supported by area cars with officers trained and equipped more extensively with lethal weapons, supported in turn by the equivalent of SWAT organisations for more serious operations.

Sometimes the physical nature of heavier weapons, of the clear threat of force, is sufficient to de-escalate a situation, creating shock of capture in the minds of suspects. One suspects that being confronted head-on by a number of officers with badges and pistols, or ideally marked officers with rifles, would have prevented such a tragic situation. For whatever reason, and be in no doubt that reason will be a good one, that did not happen.

Hopefully this regrettable situation will lead to a review of the Use of Force system within NYPD; not to criticize, but to identify problems that the incident highlighted, and resolve them. The resolution of errors is the calling of the true professional, and NYPD is proud of its professionalism.

Tags: Law Enforcement, NYPD
Posted in Law Enforcement | Comments

Success in the War on Terrorist Financing

Friday, April 25th, 2008

Recently declassified documents disclose the bureaucratic side of al Qaeda and the terrorist organization’s continuing struggle with funding.

The documents were captured in Afghanistan and Iraq and date from the early 90s to the present. They reflect an organization obsessed with paperwork, and the control and flow of money. No other than Mohammed Atef himself, at the time the number 2 or 3 leader in al Qaeda, was very much involved in enforcing accountability within the terrorist organization when it came to the expenditure of funds.

One letter contained in the declassified documents and authored by Atef demanded a detailed explanation of an al Qaeda militant leader’s expenditures. Specifically, in reference to the purchase of an air conditioner for personal use, Atef cautioned that “furniture used by brothers in al Qaeda is not considered private property…I learned that you did not submit the voucher to the accountant…”.

The documents contain numerous examples of internal financial problems within the terrorist organization. One document addressed to Atef from a militant leader wished the leader “peace and god’s mercy and blessings”, but then complained “I have not received my salary in three months and I am six months behind in paying my rent…..you also told me to remind you, and this is a reminder”. Atef died in the U.S. led assault on Osama bin Laden’s Afghan refuge in 2001.

Current intelligence confirms that al Qaeda continues to struggle with financing its terrorist agenda. Post 9/11 legislation and enhanced investigative focus, both in the U.S. and abroad, have had a dramatic impact on terrorist financing. Each and every dollar seized from that pipeline has a direct impact on the ability of the organization to operate effectively.

The United States must continue to be a world leader in the war against terrorism and specifically the war against terrorist financing. The results, as evidenced by al Qaeda’s own words, are effective – who knows how many acts of terrorism have been avoided by this effort.

Tags: terrorism financing
Posted in Featured Feed | Comments

Four-Letter Word for the NAC

Thursday, April 24th, 2008

Yesterday Acting DHS Deputy Secretary, Paul Schneider offered a four-letter word to describe to Congress (and the world) what every current, and former DHS employee who has ever stepped foot onto its Nebraska Avenue Complex (NAC) knows to be an accurate description. Now before you call my mom to wash my mouth out with soap, the word he used was DUMP. There are undoubtedly other four-letter words to describe the NAC but I will leave that your imagination.

Parked in the upper corner of Northwest Washington in one of the most beautiful portions of the District, the NAC is the former home of a one-time seminary, a former all-girls school and the US Navy’s cryptographers. It’s got well manicured grounds, a tennis court (and impromptu helicopter landing pad), a gymnasium and a number of red-bricked buildings set around the campus where DHS’ers go to work.

This might sound anything like a DUMP (or other four-letter word) if you’re presently trapped in a cubicle of some arcane federal office building but at the NAC you have regular opportunities to do the following:

Battle your officemates and colleagues for meeting/conference room space because there was not enough to go around;

Host visitors/meetings at picnic tables and park benches outside (when it was not raining, cicada mating season or during the sweltering Summer months) or at the Subway Restaurant (which was on campus) when no other meeting space was available;

Expose yourself to mold, mildew and other forms of biological agents, toxins and allergens that had been festering, growing and ‘evolving’ into new life forms in the carpets, walls, desks and ceiling tiles for decades;

Find inoperable toilets and plumbing;

Violate the physical parameters and capacity of meeting rooms and office spaces during regular business and most certainly during ‘events and emergencies’ when you needed to get critical people in the same room;

Shower with no hot water following a workout at the NAC gym;

Attend briefings, presentations and addresses by senior officials in a ‘decommissioned’ Navy Chapel because there is no other space to bring people together;

Observe water freeze on the floor of your office and icicles form on sprinkler pipes;

Share an office or cubicle space meant for one person with three others; and so on…

I know to some this will seem to be whining. There are undoubtedly harsher working environments encountered by other DHS employees (on the border, on Coast Guard cutters, undercover and regular operations by ICE, USSS and others, etc.) but if you are going to ask people to do a demanding, absolutely necessary and thankless job and expect it be a professional, respectable 24-7 operation, having the facilities and resources to make it happen is a must. While the current NAC facility and operations have improved DRAMATICALLY since DHS took residence in 2003, it remains an embarrassment.

I can only imagine what went through then-nominee Michael Chertoff’s mind when he stepped foot into the building where his new office would be to begin the transition with then-Secretary Tom Ridge. “I’m leaving a lifetime appointment and judge’s chambers for this?”

When former President Reagan died in 2004 the NAC served as the staging ground for all of the then-current Cabinet Secretaries to gather en mass before proceeding to National Cathedral for the Funeral Service. Several of us who worked in the building where the Secretaries assembled observed the look of shock on their faces as they entered the building and holding room prior to leaving for the service. One of us remarked that they might all pass the hat and buy Secretary Ridge a Home Depot Gift Card to help him fix up the place or rally volunteers from their Departments and sponsor a Habitat for Humanity weekend to repair a few things. (They didn’t do either but it would have helped.).

Congress and others make much about morale at the Department and appropriately so. There are lots of ways to improve it. Better salaries and leadership/career development opportunities are just two. So is a better work environment. Investing in the physical infrastructure of the place you want working 24-7, 365 days a year without stop, without risk of physical breakdown and that is not an embarrassment is not a luxury – it’s a requirement. Whether it is a completely refurbished facility at Nebraska Avenue or redevelopment of St. Elizabeth’s, having a DHS Headquarters that is truly functional, respectable and effective is an investment that will benefit every American — not just the employees who work there.

Many can easily argue the Department will feel right at home at a federally run psychiatric hospital (St Elizabeth’s) but the foot dragging and bureaucratic gamesmanship that is going on in making a REAL DHS Headquarters a reality only makes the Department’s job harder. Congress can fix that problem and Paul Schneider sent that message loud and clear yesterday.

Thank you Acting Deputy Secretary Schneider for speaking up yesterday and for accurately describing the conditions that NAC employees operate. I especially want to applaud your use of a four-letter word. I’m sure it’s not the first one that has come to mind in a Congressional Hearing or by spending another day at the NAC but you proved yourself to be a skilled diplomat and your word choice proved it. I just hope it will spur the use of a six-letter word – ACTION.

Tags: DHS management, DHS transition
Posted in Management & Administration | Comments

Should the US Talk to Hamas?

Thursday, April 24th, 2008

“We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem.”

“Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations.”

“The victory march will continue until the Palestinian flag flies in Jerusalem and in all of Palestine.”

“Continue to press on soldiers of freedom! We will not bend or fail until the blood of every last Jew from the youngest child to the oldest elder is spilt to redeem or land!”

How can any reasonable person meet with Hamas after one reads such statements? The only catch is that these statements were made by the late Yasser Arafat in years prior to the 1993 Oslo agreement! It took Western leaders to engage Arafat and his terrorist PLO to bring about his recognition of the State of Israel and his renunciation of terrorism, necessary preconditions for the Oslo Peace Agreement.

Why, then, all the political uproar about former President Jimmy Carter’s meetings with Hamas officials last week? The answer has much more to do with questions like “Is Carter the right person” and “did Carter do it properly” rather than “Is engaging Hamas the right thing”.

The current policy of imposing total isolation on Hamas has produced the following unintended consequences:

Weakening of the Palestinian Authority (PA): with the Palestinian leadership divided and the United States unwilling to engage Hamas, the PA finds itself in an untenable position. In order to steer Palestinian sympathies away from Hamas, the PA needs to produce better living conditions and point to the light at the end of the tunnel. In order to achieve that, the PA must reach a viable settlement to the conflict with Israel. The PA, however, enjoys no leverage over Hamas and cannot, therefore, bring about the needed peace. Result: the PA is being increasingly perceived as incapable of bringing about the change demanded by the Palestinian population thus endangering its already fragile standing in the West Bank.

Strengthening of Hamas: The inability of the PA to produce peace coupled with the conviction of Palestinians that they are now living in a state of siege imposed upon them by Israel and the United States has increased the popularity of Hamas. Palestinians are being asked to choose between the PA, which in spite of being a “partner” in peace with Israel seems impotent when it comes to the lifting of the Israeli siege, and Hamas, which is resisting the siege by firing rockets at Israel. If free elections were held today in the West Bank, Hamas would most probably come out as the victor.

Boosting Iranian Influence: the current policy of total isolation pursued by the United States against Hamas is effectively enhancing Iranian influence and soft power in the region. The more isolated Hamas feels the greater becomes its dependency on Iranian support. In addition, the constant barrage of images on Arab satellite television networks portraying Palestinians as the innocent victims of an inhuman Israeli-American policy of siege is making it much harder on Arab governments weary of Iranian ambitions in the region to take a stronger stand against Iran. Let me explain. By ably exploiting the effects of current US policy towards Hamas, Iran has succeeded in presenting itself to Arabs and Moslems alike as a true champion of their interests in Palestine. This strategy has effectively increased Iran’s soft power in the region and stopped Arab regimes in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia from adopting a tougher stance against Iran.

In conclusion, current US policy towards Hamas is boosting Iran’s standing and influence in the Middle East, increasing the Iranian threat to Israeli security, neutralizing American efforts to contain Iranian ambitions, and endangering the long term interests of the United States in that region. The question that should be seriously debated in Washington still stands: should the United States talk to Hamas?

Tags: Hamas, terrorism
Posted in Ideology & Public Diplomacy | Comments

TSA and Emergency Preparedness: An Important Capability Matures

Thursday, April 24th, 2008

There are numerous issues facing DHS where progress can be tedious and slow. Many times these are the toughest issues requiring extensive collaboration with the private sector and signify a mature government agency. Emergency preparedness falls into this category. Agree or disagree, the fact is that President Bush’s DHS has made a Herculean effort to move from day to day crisis management to a more thoughtful consideration of threat based risk management priorities. A prime example is the evolving emphasis that all parts of DHS are placing on emergency preparedness.

TSA is emerging as an excellent example. The agency is taking important steps to protect the nation’s transportation infrastructure and all Americans who use it and depend on it every day. TSA has developed an emerging capability to disrupt plots through actionable intelligence in full coordination with the federal law enforcement community and has now thought through in considerable detail what it will take to recover from an emergency or a disaster.

As an early employee of the agency, I remember when we initially invaded Iraq, TSA stood up its first emergency operations center which was a transformed conference room with about a dozen laptops and as many phone lines put in place in order to be prepared for a terrorist retaliation. To say the least, not a lot of time was expended on planning – time was something we didn’t have.

TSA has come a remarkably long way since then. Today there is an agenc- wide Preparedness Committee that produces doctrine and response plans. Its purpose is to assure full coordination, and it has developed an advanced incident command structure so that everybody knows who is supposed to be doing what during a terrorist incident.

From my perspective, remembering the invasion of Iraq, the advances TSA has made in its emergency response capabilities are a significant and proud legacy of the Bush Administration for which each of us should be grateful.

Tags: Aviation and airport security, emergency preparedness
Posted in Aviation and airport security, Emergency Preparedness & Response | Comments

RAIL SECURITY: WHAT’S THE FOCUS?

Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008

On Monday The Washington Post ran a story on the phenomenal growth of the freight railway industry over the past few years. Due in large part to growing global trade and rising fuel costs for trucks, railroads are adding new track, building new terminals and switchyards and refurbishing tunnels to accommodate larger rail cars. So what are the security implications for this sudden expansion?

For the past several years DHS and DOT have undertaken a number of initiatives to help bring an elevated level of security to freight rail. Unlike aviation security, DHS is not the lone actor when it comes to securing freight rail. Aside from DOT, perhaps the most important players are the railroads themselves. The vast majority of rail tracks and infrastructure is privately owned and operated. As such, the federal government’s responsibilities and actions need to be aligned accordingly.

However, before declaring a security threat due to this increased usage of freight rail, DHS should continue to look at the intelligence and make risk-based decisions. At this time, the ongoing threat does not come from freight rail but from passenger rail.

The 2004 Madrid subway attacks and the 2005 London subway and bus attacks demonstrate that the terrorists consider passenger rail and mass transit as preferred targets. The rising fuel costs for automobiles and congested air travel could logically push more passengers to rail throughout the course of the year and beyond. This is where DHS and DOT should place their emphasis.

And while DHS continues to place importance on growing the number of inspector and canine teams that patrol passenger rail, more emphasis should be placed on technological solutions. Will there be a silver bullet? No, but that shouldn’t stop a robust R&D effort.

For too long DHS and Congress have devoted small sums of resources to adequately address this growing threat. More should be done to secure our passenger rail and mass transit systems. For instance various x-ray technologies have been considered in recent years and could become a significant deterrent if deployed on a random but ongoing basis. Also, expanded deployment of bomb containment units could help mitigate potential threats and additional inspectors across the entire rail sector would add a welcome degree of heightened vigilance.

Tags: cargo security, railway security, Supply Chain Security, Transportation Security
Posted in Management & Administration, Science & Technology, Supply Chain Security, Transportation Security | Comments

A Cheap Shot that Missed the Big Picture

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2008

One of the great things about the Internet is that anyone with anything on his or her mind can say anything, regardless of how informed and insightful he or she might be. To illustrate this point I present Exhibit A – David Axe of Wired Magazine’s latest posting, “It’s a Major Prize.”

In this posting, Mr. Axe takes the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) to task for honoring US Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen with its highest honor, the Dwight D. Eisenhower Award.

To quote Mr. Axe, “Allen managed to get through the Katrina debacle looking like a hero, but since then he’s done nothing to halt the Coast Guard’s steady unraveling. When will we ever start holding our senior leaders accountable for their organizations’ performances?”

As an NDIA member and as someone who attended the dinner honoring Adm. Allen, I take great exception to Mr. Axe’s commentary about the worthiness of his recognition and his flippant trivializing of the honor given to him. The award given to Adm. Allen by NDIA was bestowed upon him to recognize his “outstanding contribution toward increasing public awareness of our national defense needs” (Source: 2008 NDIA Eisenhower Award Program). It can also be said that the award was given to him to recognize his exceptional thirty-eight year career of service to the nation.

In accepting the award, Adm. Allen openly and candidly admitted that the reason he was standing on the stage receiving the evening’s honor was because of the exemplary service of the men and women of the US Coast Guard. He accepted the award in their name and in the name of his father, retired USCG Chief Control Damage Controlman, Clyde Allen. Unlike many of the awardees at Washington, or for that matter Hollywood, functions where the honoree proclaims they are “king of the world” (see James Cameron’s Titanic Oscar acceptance speech) and their egos are elevated to new extraordinary heights, Allen’s acceptance was as humble and self-effacing as the service he proudly leads today.

For far too long we as a nation have overlooked the critical service of the US Coast Guard. When compared to the funding, honors and public recognition of its other military peers, the Coast Guard got little more than scraps but in one of our worst hours as a nation, this underappreciated service showed the world the strength, honor and character of its people and the missions they serve every day without parade or media fanfare.

Rather than talk about ‘what’s right’ about honoring Adm. Allen and by default, his service branch, the often overlooked Coast Guard, Mr. Axe took the easy path and offered a cheap shot where it was absolutely unnecessary. Decrying the lack of his accountability (Axe’s word choice – not mine) since becoming Commandant is even more ridiculous.

Blaming Allen for the Deepwater debacle, something he inherited, is beyond me. Rather than position someone to ‘throw under’ the bus (a traditional Washington tactic for Congressional Oversight hearings) and answer tough questions about what went wrong, he took the center seat at the hearings and answered every question. Additionally, he could have just as easily kept the existing Deepwater structure in place and provided the customary ‘window-dressing’ of change to show that things will get better and ‘this won’t happen again.’ Instead, he brought the complete management and systems integration for Deepwater back ‘in-house’ to the US Coast Guard where closer scrutiny, management and oversight could be provided. Is that lack of accountability?

As to doing anything innovative to prevent the further unraveling of the Coast Guard, one need only review Adm. Allen’s establishment of the Deployable Operations Group (DOG). This newly established part of the Coast Guard provides Deployable Specialized Force (DSF) units to rapidly position themselves to meet specific threats either in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world. Having this in-house capacity allows the Coast Guard the ability to perform high-risk, high-profile missions such as anti-terrorism operations, enhanced emergency response and threat assessments involving nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. That sounds fairly innovative and proactive to me in a post 9/11 world but I may have different performance metrics from Mr. Axe.

There are many other things that could be listed that detail Adm. Allen’s actions as Commandant to ensure and invest in the future of the Coast Guard. Taken altogether, most would simply call what Adm. Allen has been doing as Commandant (as well as his entire career) one thing – leadership. But it’s just easier to take a shot via keyboard at the integrity of someone or some organization that stands up to be recognized.

But then again, that’s the great thing about the Internet – anyone with anything on their mind can say anything they want regardless of how informed and insightful they might be. Interestingly enough, that’s a freedom that Adm. Allen, the US Coast Guard and countless others have defended, protected and enabled all of us to have and by every measure, they have been more than accountable.

Tags: Coast Guard, martitime security, port security
Posted in Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Maritime & Seaport Security, Science & Technology | Comments

Washington Times Hits a Homer with REAL ID Editorial

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2008

The Washington Times says it better than anybody yet on why the hysteria over REAL ID is misplaced:

Timothy McVeigh used a fraudulent South Dakota driver’s license to rent
the Ryder truck in Oklahoma that was used to bomb the Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 persons. The Sept. 11
hijackers fraudulently acquired 17 driver’s licenses from Florida,
California and Arizona, including four duplicates. They also obtained
13 state-issued IDs from Maryland, Virginia and Florida. The IDs were
used to open bank accounts, find housing, rent cars and board aircraft
on Sept. 11. Ziad Jarrah, the hijacker who piloted the plane that
crashed in Shanksville, Pa., and Hani Hanjour, who crashed his plane
into the Pentagon, had both obtained Virginia IDs by fraud. Three
Salvadoran immigrants living in Virginia (one a legal permanent
resident of the United States and the other two illegal aliens) helped
four of the Sept. 11 hijackers use fraudulent identification in order
to obtain Virginia-issued identification cards.

Tags: Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Immigration & Visa Policy
Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Immigration & Visa Policy | Comments

TSA is Looking Good

Monday, April 21st, 2008

I suppose the day had to come, but I didn’t expect it to come so soon.

After five years of getting beaten up routinely by the Congress on a bipartisan basis, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) appears to have found a whole new set of friends in Congress. I testified April 16 before the House Homeland Security Committee’s Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee where TSA Assistant Secretary Kip Hawley was the star witness. While Chair Sheila Jackson-Lee, Ranking Member Dan Lungren, and a handful of other members of the subcommittee certainly had questions covering a range of areas – Secure Flight, access controls, armed pilots, etc – not once did Hawley get attacked in a harsh manner. Nor did any member leave the impression that he or she was unhappy with the general direction of TSA.

Hawley certainly gets a tremendous amount of credit for this attitude, by working closely with Congress, keeping expectations realistic, and generally being an effective head of an agency settling into its missions.

But is also true that part of the reason why TSA looks so good is that other parts of the executive branch have been under such criticism in recent years. TSA’s sister agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, have been front and center in the divisive debate on immigration reform. FEMA has faced withering oversight since Katrina, and the Department of Justice has suffered from the U.S. attorneys debacle.

And perhaps most importantly, the non-security segments of the aviation system – airport delays, congestion, maintenance-driven cancellations, lost bags, etc – have suffered a near meltdown. TSA is looking good, and looking even better in comparison.

Tags: Aviation and airport security, Border Security, homeland security politics
Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR | Comments

Is Terrorism the New Political It Girl?

Friday, April 18th, 2008

What is it with some American politicians and their fawning over terrorists? Has 9/11 become blasé? Jimmy Carter goes on a highly publicized Terror Tourism trip to sit at the feet of Hamas. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley pronounces Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers a “distinguished” and “valued” member of the Chicago community.

You probably remember Bill Ayers. Back in the Seventies, as a member of the Weather Underground terrorism group, he urged: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents.”

The self-described goal of the Weathermen was the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government. Their plan came unglued when a group of them were sitting around making bombs for that very purpose and accidently blew themselves up.

After going underground for years, Ayers has now reengineered his reputation, with the help of the liberal political elite, to become a darling of the academic set. Here’s a contemporary description of Bill Ayers from the New York Times, just after the September 11^th attack on the United States: “‘I don’t regret setting bombs,’ Bill Ayers said. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.’ Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970’s as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago. The long curly locks in his Wanted poster are shorn, though he wears earrings. He still has tattooed on his neck the rainbow-and-lightning Weathermen logo that appeared on letters taking responsibility for bombings.” The Times story goes on to note Ayer’s acknowledgement that he would not “discount the possibility” of bombing again. He continues to hold a fascination of such violence: “Even today, he finds ‘a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance,’ he writes.”

One man’s poetry is another man’s violent death, I guess. And another politician’s “valued” member of the community, as Mayor Daley called the Weatherbomber Bill Ayers yesterday.

And then there’s Jimmy Carter, once on the way to becoming the Great Ex-President, who has shattered his reputation with an inexplicable desire to pander to one of the most violent and lethal terrorist organizations on the globe.

Carter claims his trip is not about his own ego but about setting up negotiations to find a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. Perhaps he hasn’t read Hamas’ own charter, which calls for the obliteration of Israel. Talks, Hamas claims, are useless. The violent destruction of Israel is the only solution: ““There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”

Cut to today, with Hamas leaders hailing Carter’s visit as international recognition of their legitimacy. Over the weekend, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar used an above-the-fold placement of his op-ed in the Washington Post to proclaim, “President Jimmy Carter’s sensible plan to visit the Hamas leadership this week brings honesty and pragmatism to the Middle East while underscoring the fact that American policy has reached its dead end.”

So if honesty is the end goal here, as Mahmoud Zahar claims, perhaps he can clarify the inherent contradiction of meeting with the globe-trotting Carter for purposes of “peace” while leading an organization that asserts as its founding belief that there can be no peace without “jihad” and violent destruction of Isreal.

And perhaps both Mayor Daley and former President Carter can clarify their reasons for embracing and legitimizing individuals who use murder as a negotiating tactic.

Tags: Bill Ayers, Hamas, Jimmy Carter, Mahmoud Zahar, Richard Daley
Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Immigration & Visa Policy, Radicalization, Uncategorized | Comments

The Forgotten Portion of ‘We the People’

Thursday, April 17th, 2008

"src":"http://www.youtube.com/v/e5XYtgiJ9RQ"

Recent news stories chronicle efforts by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to implement a nationwide emergency alert system that notifies users of an emergency via text messages to cell phones and other electronic devices. The FCC and others are to be applauded for putting forward such a system. It certainly complements the work of the post-Katrina Report that came out in June 2006, but part of me feels that the train has already left the station on this issue.

Regardless of where you live in this country, you can sign up for breaking news, weather or emergency alerts from local and national media outlets, websites and even local and regional emergency management authorities. Most of the time, the news media puts out these type of alerts far in advance of anything that is issued by any governmental authority. It’s more than appropriate that the FCC is pushing such a nationwide emergency notification system but where services and capabilities are already being provided (predominantly by the private sector), shouldn’t we be focusing on the critical gaps that remain in emergency notification?

Imagine being in a hurricane prone State with a Category 3 or 4 storm coming inland and its projected course changes dramatically and its now spawning tornadoes in the area near you. While others in the community receive bulletins warning of the incoming threat, you never receive any type of understandable warning to evacuate from the danger facing you and your family.

This is the harsh reality facing many deaf and hard of hearing individuals living in the US today.

According to US Census figures, just over 10% of the US population is either deaf or hard of hearing. Despite the tremendous amounts of technology and resources we have today focusing on emergency management, a significant portion of the country fails to receive emergency alerts.

Every day we (in the hearing world) are bombarded by media and gadgets that deliver non-stop information ranging from the important (breaking news, weather, etc.) to the ridiculous (constant Britney updates). To a degree, we are able to regulate what information we get and how we receive it.

Yet for the majority of people who are deaf or hard of hearing who rely on American Sign Language (ASL) as their principal means of communications, this capability does not exist.

Text messaging and closed captioning are options that can be used to relay important information to people who are hard of hearing and whose primary language is English. However, large segments of deaf only use ASL — which has no roots in English. Consequently the scrolling text used in such alerts are often undecipherable. As such, when authorities or the media issue an urgent warning about an unfolding emergency (weather, emergency alert) via a text message/closed captioning, one of our most vulnerable communities is not getting the message because they are unable to comprehend these potentially life-saving messages.

Our ignorance as a nation to this situation is shameful. I am not deaf, nor are any members of my family. I cannot begin to appreciate the challenges associated with living in a world where silence reigns and my communications abilities are limited to those who can ‘sign’ to me to share information.

Americans were rightfully outraged to learn how people, particularly the most vulnerable (poor, elderly, disabled), were ‘left behind’ when Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast. Regardless of excuse, the anger and global humiliation of that event caused us all to ask difficult questions about our readiness and emergency preparedness.

The answers to a number of those questions were not comforting, but they did spur dramatic improvements within FEMA, the FCC and others governmental organizations and prompted the investment of additional and overdue resources in our nation’s emergency management structures.

Despite these improvements, there remains a tremendous lack of engagement when it comes to reaching out to citizens who are truly vulnerable.

Some states and communities have shown tremendous leadership by reaching out to the hearing impaired during emergencies, but only Texas provides any type of comprehensive statewide emergency warning system to reach the deaf by broadcasting warning messages in ASL.

As part of Florida’s regular emergency briefings by the Governor and other personnel during televised news conferences (especially during hurricane season), an ASL interpreter is provided to ‘sign’ the warnings that are being issued. Other states, cities and communities provide similar interpreters, but more need to take steps to change the status quo.

FEMA and others have shown some initiative with its Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) Program, yet tremendous gaps still exist despite the national rhetoric promising not to leave anyone behind ‘next time.’ We’ve made big strides since the Hurricanes of 2005 but as we enter Hurricane Season 2008, we’ve adopted a Vegas attitude betting that everything will turn out OK when it comes to emergency alerts. That’s a gamble I wouldn’t take.

There are more than enough parties to blame for the current circumstance (FEMA, FCC, state and local governments, broadcasters/media, etc). All are equally culpable and should be held accountable but these are also the same entities that can correct the problem – a process that needs to start now.

There are existing technologies and programs that can provide solutions to this problem. Unfortunately we in the hearing world are doing a dreadful job in making sure everyone has access to the emergency messages when they need it most. Focused attention, a sense of urgency, dedicated and sufficient resources and firm commitments to make the communications connections happen for this vulnerable constituency and others is what seems to be in shortest supply.

As Americans, we believe that every person, regardless of their class or condition has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When a person lacks the ability to defend themselves or prepare for an emergency, ‘We the people’ have an American and most certainly ‘human’ responsibility to step forward and assist.

Somewhere along the way, we have forgotten that nearly 10% of the population that is part of ‘We the people’ has the same right to know what is happening so as to protect and preserve what they hold dear. None of us in the hearing world would accept lack of emergency awareness or information when it came to protecting and preserving our families and property. Why should someone who is deaf or hard of hearing be any different?

Posted in Emergency Preparedness & Response, Science & Technology, Uncategorized | Comments

Top Mid East Scholar to Speak at Washington Conference

Thursday, April 17th, 2008

Leading scholars of Middle East studies and African studies are set to gather in the nation’s capital for the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa’s (ASMEA) annual conference later this month, where they will be joined by the preeminent authority in Middle East studies — Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton University.

Hailed as “the world’s foremost Islamic scholar” (Wall Street Journal) and as “the doyen of Middle Eastern studies” (New York Times), Professor Lewis’s views on the issues facing the Islamic World inform the ranks of academia, policymakers and pundits.

Set for April 24-26, 2008 at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, D.C., the conference is entitled: “The Evolution of Islamic Politics, Philosophy, and Culture in the Middle East and Africa: From Traditional Limits to Modern Extremes.”

The conference will feature a combination of panels and roundtables with scholars presenting new research findings on the importance of the Islamic influence in these regions, as well as a keynote speech from Professor Lewis.

As the conference’s keynote speaker, Professor Lewis-who also serves as chairman of ASMEA-will speak to attendees about the future of these regions in a speech entitled Studying the Other: Different Ways of Looking at the Middle East and Africa.

Media is invited to cover ASMEA’s conference in part, or in whole, including an opportunity to cover Professor Lewis’s speech.

WHAT: Keynote speech from acclaimed Middle East studies Professor Bernard Lewis

WHEN: April 25, 2008 12:30 pm – 2:00 pm

WHERE: Marriot Wardman Park Hotel, 2660 Woodley Road, NW Washington, DC 20008

To reserve press credentials for access to part or all of ASMEA’s annual conference, please contact Patrick Creamer at (202) 429-8860 or via email at pjc@asmeascholars.org.

Tags: Bernard Lewis, Islam, Islamism, Radicalization
Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Radicalization | Comments

A Deeper Assessment of the Candidates’ Positions on Iran

Wednesday, April 16th, 2008

At first glance, the positions of the three major Presidential candidates regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions do not seem much different. All three express concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and all three seem committed to stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Taking a second look at the candidates’ positions, however, one finds differences mainly centering on the question of how and when to negotiate with Iran. Senator Obama is willing to negotiate at the highest levels of government without preconditions, Senator Clinton is willing to negotiate at a lower level of government representation, and Senator McCain wants to negotiate from a position of strength.

In reading these positions, one might quickly and superficially conclude that the differences in the candidates’ approaches show Obama as idealistic or naïve, Clinton as realistic or calculating, and McCain as determined or imperialistic. In reality, however, these differences in negotiating styles and approaches have very serious policy implications for the United States. Let me explain.

The road to negotiations with Teheran goes through Baghdad. Developments in Iraq will determine whether, when and how negotiations between the United States and Iran take place. And the first question to ask ourselves is not whether the United States wants or should negotiate with Iran, but rather what does Iran really want in Iraq?

Most analysts have been saying that Iran would like to “quick” the United States out of Iraq. This conviction has blinded us to true Iranian intentions, caused us to badly assess the situation in Iraq and limited our policy options. In reality, Iran is much shrewder than most analysts think and is planning for the long haul. Iran wants to see the United States stay in Iraq as long as possible for the following reasons:

The longer the United States remains military engaged in Iraq, the greater the chances are that the Iraqi people will rise against what they will perceive as American occupation. Score one for Iran: let the Iraqis do the fighting.
Continued long term US military operations in Iraq will insure a process of bleeding the United States to the point of fatigue and defeatism. Score two for Iran: America should not simply be defeated in Iraq. It should leave fatigued and weakened so Iran could then assert itself as a regional power.
The presence of tens of thousands of American troops on Iraqi soil as sitting targets for Iranian proxies is comforting to the Iranian regime because it ties one of America’s hands when the latter explores military options against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Score three for Iran: why let American troops leave Iraq and free America’s hands! The more engaged US troops are in Iraq, the riskier it becomes for the United States to carry out military strikes against Iran. In Iran’s perspective, the 140,000 American troops and the tens of thousands of civilian and security contractors in Iraq are potential targets and/or hostages. Can you imagine, for example, the possible consequences of a nightmarish scenario in which thousands of unarmed Iraqis, instigated by Iranian agents, storm US positions?

In summary, Iran does not seek a quick defeat of the United States in Iraq because this may lead to a quick withdrawal of US forces from Iraq (such as in Lebanon in 1983) and will, therefore, enable the US to recover much more quickly and focus its energies on the Iranian threat.

On the other hand, Iran is terrified by an American victory in Iraq. The Iranian regime feels quite confident that the United States with its current policy is incapable to achieve victory in Iraq. A drastic change in policy reflecting a more determined America to win in Iraq presents a scary scenario for Iran.

In reality, Iran’s strategic objective is to seek a slow process of American defeat in Iraq. The current regime believes that this is the most viable option for Iran to secure a greater role for itself in the region and force American accommodation of its ambitions.

In light of this clearer understanding of Iranian intentions, it seems that McCain’s and Obama’s approaches to Iraq are the ones to cause most concern to the Iranian regime. McCain may pursue a more aggressive military policy in Iraq in order to achieve a decisive victory, thus strengthening America’s hand vis-à-vis Iran. Obama, who opposed the Iraq war from the start, may decide on a quicker withdrawal of US forces, thus freeing America’s currently tied hand in Iraq and strengthening America’s negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran. As for Clinton, her approach to Iraq, which aims at achieving withdrawal of US forces over the longer term and in a “more orderly” fashion, appears at first glance as being more centrist or “middle of the road” in comparison to the positions of the other two candidates. In reality though, her approach to Iraq makes America’s negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran the weakest because it plays exactly into Iranian designs for the region through Iraq.

The road to Teheran goes through Baghdad!

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR | Comments

Hunger Breeds Instability – An Ingredient for Terrorism

Wednesday, April 16th, 2008

Headlines around the world have reported on the growing crisis over food shortages and the spiraling costs of everyday staples that are putting hunger on the plates of people who have never experienced it. Rice shortages in the Philippines and this past weekend’s food riots in Haiti are just two stories in what is quickly becoming a very dangerous situation – in the short term and most certainly the long term. In the short term, governments that can not provide the basic staples of life will find themselves on the brink of ruin and outright collapse (Haiti, Philippines, etc.). People in these countries who may have never raised their voices in protest over anything will quickly and easily join the masses in the street when it comes to providing food for their families. If left unaddressed and ignored, these citizens-turned-protestors have every potential to raise arms against the government and it will play out out much like it did this past weekend in Haiti.

Governments collapse for any number of reasons, but when faced with degrading human conditions and survival is at risk, the long term implications of inattention, ignorance, corruption, and bureaucracy can breed the very elements we are fighting in Afghanistan and elsewhere. It is far too easy for Bin Laden and others like him to point to the West when rallying the hungry, the disenchanted and the enraged to their cause. While filling their minds and hearts with hatred, they also often times provide for their survival by filling their families’ stomachs, enabling a new generation of terrorists ready, willing and able to attack and destroy us without hesitancy.

The most frustrating thing about this scenario is our ability and means to stop it from happening in the first place as clearly demonstrated by two examples. The first is Afghanistan and the rise of the Taliban. While filled to the brim with US weapons throughout the 1980’s to fight the Soviets, American food and medical aid was miniscule to say the least. After the departure of the Soviets from Afghanistan, Western inattention to the shattered country allowed the Taliban to fill the vacuum left behind and become the breeding ground for the executioners of 9/11.

The second example is in the Palestinian Territories where Hamas stunned the world by becoming the duly elected government of the people in 2006. Long known as a ruthless and indiscriminate terrorist group, Hamas rose to power by addressing the basic needs of disenchanted Palestinians. While the Palestinian Authority was legitimately seen as corrupt and ineffective, Hamas filled the vacuum to provide food, medical care and purpose where none had previously existed. The payoff for Hamas’ investment came at the ballot box when they gained the majority of seats in January 2006 in the legislative council of the Palestinian Authority.

Fortunately, some have gotten the message that we cannot turn a blind eye to the current food crisis without creating a repeat of the Taliban or Hamas situation. The recent actions of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to open their wallets instead of issuing more rhetoric is evidence of their understanding, as are the actions by the White House and USAID on Monday to release even more funds and emergency food aid to help in areas where the situation is deteriorating even more rapidly.

The hard part for any effort like this is keeping it up. Our commitment on these fronts must be steadfast and not just a momentary response to images captured by television cameras and reporters. Hunger does not just go away by offloading bags of grain from the back of a C-130 on a rustic tarmac in a third world country. It requires investment and strategy. Part of that strategy is already in action by USAID’s Millennium Development Program.

It has also evidenced by the billions of dollars in investments that have been made in Africa over the past decade but there is one surprising place that I would encourage others to look for strategic thinking on this front – the Secretary of Defense. This past November, Defense Secretary Robert Gates delivered a speech at Kansas State University that unfortunately did not get the attention it deserved. In the annual Alf Landon Lecture, Sec. Gates talked about the use of ‘soft power’ to mitigate against the both current and future threats. It goes without saying that we expect the Defense Secretary to advocate for more spending for troops, equipment and advanced weapons system. This Secretary offers the other approach – if you want to secure the future of our nation and stability around the world, core investments in economic development, basic services, civic engagement, diplomacy and more have to be made in areas that desperately need it. Indifference breeds the cancers of hate, genocide, intolerance and terrorism that require military forces to intervene with painful results for all.

The tragedy of hunger is nothing new, but we have a real opportunity to deploy others ‘forces’ to prosecute the War on Terror and prevent its spread to other locations. Coupled with our investments in guns and equipment for the ‘warfighter,’ we need investments in the war-preventer. Following the devastating Tsunamis that struck Asia at the end of 2004, the US along with most of world responded by providing billions of dollars in food and relief supplies to the affected areas. Those actions, and other examples like them, do more to advance our security interests than anything else we can possibly do.

For every bag of grain we send to a place in need, it is likely one fewer place American military forces will have to one day serve in combat. Some may call that a ‘pacifist’ agenda – I would argue that it is as much a ‘security’ agenda as having a platoon of the US Marine Corps at the ready for insertion to ‘rectify’ a situation that needs to be immediately ‘fixed.’ Based on experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East, Haiti and every other bubbling hotspot of unrest, we need to prevent disintegration in vulnerable countries, to stop the hell and horrors they can one day unleash on other shores and on our own. That’s a worthy investment and it can be served in a bowl of food.

Posted in Immigration & Visa Policy | Comments

Googly Feds: National Security Letters Demand Oversight

Tuesday, April 15th, 2008

The FBI wants to Google you. Online, offline, underline. And they’d prefer to do it without your knowledge, thank you very much.

They are asking us to trust them.

They have a surprisingly short memory of the history of their institution.

During a hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties today a bipartisan group of skeptical members of Congress will ask why we should not reign in the power of the FBI to issue so-called “national security letters,” which require institutions to turn over sensitive personal information about private U.S. citizens.

Never mind that under J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI ran roughshod over the civil liberties of citizens for decades. The Director actually maintained a file – some would call it a Blackmail File – that contained embarrassing information on a range of important people, including politicians. It took the Church Committee, after years of congressional abdication of its oversight responsibilities, to curtail some of the worst abuses.

No need, however, to go back to the Communist Era to find abuses of power at the FBI. The Department of Justice’s own Inspector General issued scathing reports last year about the FBI abusing its power to collect information on private citizens. The resource that allowed them to do so? The national security letters.

These abuses are in no way comparable to the outrageous behavior of the Bureau under Hoover. Rather, it appears to be largely a case of sloppiness and overzealous prosecutorial mindsets. Perhaps a culture addicted to Jack Bauer and idiotic portrayals of law enforcement and national security measures tends to seep into the culture of our nation’s largest federal law enforcement agency. Just enough, anyway, to justify in the minds of some agents that it’s okay to manufacture emergencies where none exist in order to gather intelligence. The IG did not offer motive for such abuse, only the evidence of its existence.

Frankly, the motives are irrelevant. I would guess that the motives are based on the credible and sincere effort to stop another September 11^th. And for this, the men and women working anonymously in our national security infrastructure deserve our thanks. However, nothing justifies the abuse of fundamental American civil liberties and rights.

I’ve long been baffled by the jugular-thickening protests of our nation’s normally reserved and bookish librarians, who would have us all believe that the FBI is crouching behind every bookshelf seeking access into our most private and personal reading materials. The truth is, the Internet and New Media has forever altered the way Americans gather information – for good or ill purposes – and we must allow our law enforcement to adapt accordingly.

What is required is not a knee-jerk opposition to new tactics (think of Nancy Pelosi and the House’s refusal to reform FISA); what is needed is greater independent oversight. Congress should never again fail in its responsibility to oversee the activities of organizations as powerful and potentially threatening to American civil liberties.

Meanwhile, the FBI is asking for “more time” to get its own house in order to rectify these recent abuses of the national security letters. The FBI doesn’t need more time; it needs more self-discipline. Who signed off on these national security letters based on shoddy paperwork and even false circumstances? What disciplinary actions were taken against the supervisors who did sign off on them? What rules are in place to prevent such abuses from occurring again?

And most importantly, what actions are available to Congress should the FBI again fail to enforce such professionalism and self-discipline itself?

Tags: Civil liberties & Privacy, FBI, national security letters
Posted in Civil liberties & Privacy, Intelligence, Law Enforcement | Comments