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

Archive for May, 2008

Bush’s Iran Dilemma

Saturday, May 31st, 2008

Without question, the most significant responsibility of the U.S. government, and specifically the President, is to protect the safety of U.S. citizens. The 9/11 attacks reminded all of us of that fact as the United States launched its largest government re-organization since World War II to create the Department of Homeland Security.

The 9/11 Commission Report focused on all aspects of the attacks to determine what information and intelligence was available to the U.S. government before September 11, 2001. The question was and remains, “Why was the United States unable to discover the 9/11 conspiracy ?” Clearly, if the government was able to uncover the 9/11 plot, there is no doubt that all efforts would have been made to neutralize the threat.

Today, one of the most significant threats to the United States (and the world) is Iran’s nuclear weapons ambition. Last week on Capitol Hill, General Petraus listed Iran as key to the top two security concerns facing Central Command. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert voiced his similar concern directly to President Bush during his visit to Israel earlier this month. Egyptian and Saudi Arabian leaders also expressed their worries about Iran’s nuclear program when Bush met with them on his trip to the Middle East.

If diplomatic efforts to solve this dilemma continue to look unlikely to produce an acceptable outcome, isn’t it the President’s responsibility to take action? Is bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities even an option or are the President’s hands tied when it comes to dealing with Iran? And, perhaps most importantly, is time running out ?

Most U.S. (and world) nuclear experts believe there is enough evidence to verify Iran’s nuclear weapons program. As the debate continues over how to deal with this sensitive situation, it seems more and more likely that any sort of decisive action will come too late. Perhaps some future “Commission” will publish reports criticizing the government’s inaction and President Bush’s failure to take the appropriate action to neutralize this threat.

Bush approaches the end of his Presidency facing a very difficult dilemma with a determination and reputation to take exceptional measure to defend the United States.

Tags: Iran, nuclear weapons
Posted in Featured Feed | Comments

DHS’s Regulation of the Private Sector Doesn’t Always Work

Friday, May 30th, 2008

There is a tendency for us as Americans to think that improving the status of homeland security means deploying more Border Patrol Agents equipped with better technology, and better trained TSA screeners with better technology and high tech passports that aren’t subject to fraudulent tampering. In my view, we all too often overlook the fact that the private sector is regulated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and that advancements in homeland security can actually come from the prudent regulation of those industries involved in the legitimate commerce – the very lifeblood of our nation.

However, there are instances when the DHS uses its regulatory authorities to advance security in a way that is flat wrong. Requiring airlines to play a pivotal role in US VISIT EXIT is one such example. DHS recently issued the US VISIT EXIT proposed rulemaking which makes little sense and flies in the face of the successful pilot program the Department has undertaken. Let’s consider for a moment what’s at stake.

Visa overstays are an example of potential terrorist behavior – more than a few of the 9/11 terrorists were, in fact, visa overstays. The Federal government is correct in its desire to know about all visa overstays right away and to conduct risk assessments on them and on all foreign nationals entering the country. There is no question this function should be implemented by Federal employees and not through heavy regulation of the private sector. Yet, this is precisely what DHS intends to do by requiring airlines – already reeling from high fuel prices – to collect biometrics on foreign nationals exiting the country at the ticket counter requiring costly reconfiguration. In addition, it flies in the face of where the airlines have been moving: reducing the need for passengers to come to the ticket counter at all.

DHS has conducted pilot programs using contract employees and kiosks in airport concourses to perform this function. It’s worked well. When DHS enforced the requirement for visitors to visit the US VISIT EXIT kiosk (a relatively simple task for the airlines to support), guess what occurred? DHS found significant numbers of visa overstays. The pilots worked. They showed the right way to do this job – and it is a DHS job to do. This approach doesn’t require costly disruption at airline ticket counters that will surely impact domestic travelers as well as foreign nationals.

Here is another thing to keep in mind. The failure of DHS to get the US VISIT EXIT program fully in place (air exit is a piece of it and doesn’t eliminate the entire threat) has wasted untold amounts of law enforcement resources. Bear in mind that US VISIT ENTRY advises the Federal government of every foreign national entering the country. Some of those people are “persons of interest” to various law enforcement and intelligence agencies. If these agencies don’t have the ability to know when these “persons of interest” leave the country, then they may well be wasting resources looking for people who are no longer here.

At the end of the day, this is a critical responsibility that should not be handled as a matter of private sector regulation any more than screening of passengers should have been on September 11, 2001.

Tags: homeland security
Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security | Comments

Finally! Something to Watch on TV!

Thursday, May 29th, 2008

There isn’t much that I actually enjoy on television today. I’m not fan of the reality shows and have never really cared who gets voted off the island, gets kicked out of the house or gets a rose at the end of the hour of romancing in the hot tub. Frankly I find reality TV one more indication of the numbing and dumbing of America, but my attitude may soon change.

On Wednesday (May 28, 2008), ABC Television announced that it will be broadcasting a series that will “focus on the efforts of border protection agencies to halt illegal smuggling and immigration.” Entitled “Border Security USA,” the series will cover operations around the US with Customs & Border Patrol (CBP) Officers, US Coast Guard, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and other parts of the Department of Homeland Security that work to safeguard the nation. Working with DHS, the show’s cameras will be given unprecedented access to take viewers along for the ride to see what these people do, how they do it and what difference they make.

This is awesome idea and one that I am really excited to see. While DHS and the news media have gone to great lengths over the past five years to explain what the Department is and what it does, I think it is safe to safe to say that the majority of the American public has little understanding, or for that matter appreciation, of what is homeland security and how it’s done. This series might just change that. In fact, it might actually open the eyes of Americans to the challenges, conditions and decisions that go on every day to protect them and their families even as they continue on completely oblivious in their daily lives.

While the description of the series conjures images of the still-running television show Cops, or the recent Spike TV short-lived series DEA, it has the potential to educate the populace about the very human element that is at the heart of homeland security. Officers, agents, screeners, Coast guardsmen and women and more have to make ‘Go’ and ‘No Go’ decisions every day. Whether that decision is whether to allow people entry into this country for work or recreational travel; deciding what means and methods to use to stop illegal entry of people, drugs and other materials into the country; or how they handle the everyday surprises that occur on the job, the majority of our country is incredibly ignorant about these frontline circumstances.

How the men and women who work in these positions make and execute those decisions is often challenged, second guessed and many times mocked by the media, politicians, frustrated citizens and the full-time arm-chair quarterbacks who always know what’s best in life. It goes without saying that no one is immune from criticism, but if you take on a job such as the ones that will be profiled on this show you are putting an extra target on your back for the critics to take aim at in addition to the one the bad guys have already placed on you for trying to stop them. What ABC and DHS are offering the American public is real reality TV and if it’s done right, it can be a powerful tool to educate Americans about the often unheralded and unrecognized people who serve their interests.

The proposed series could deliver more insight and observation to these environments than any government or media generated report. By ‘being there,’ we can educate the population of the constant threat of death and serious injury that Border Agents, Coast Guardsmen and more operate under. For those of us who have never worked in those environments, it’s fairly easy for us to think that the decisions that are made on the border, the coast line and other ports of entry are cut and dried. They aren’t and never will be, and I hope the producers of this show will make that apparent in their broadcasted footage.

Some parties will undoubtedly call this a propaganda stunt by the Department to try and spruce up its image amongst a skeptical public and increasingly suspect media and Congress. Without even viewing an episode, that charge – like many of the others hurled at the Department – is a quick cheap shot by people who find greater value at hurling stones at others rather than offering solutions in which to better engage and educate the populace.

While it will be easy for the cameramen, editors and producers to compile the footage and music that makes these people look like heroes (many already are), I hope they will take a more difficult road and show how hard these jobs really are. The operational decisions that each of these persons make can have far reaching consequences that go beyond the allotted 46 minute running time of each episode. Weeks, months and years of training go into preparing every individual to serve in these roles and somehow I hope that can be captured and shared with viewers.

Angling the camera for the hero ‘shot,’ along with the action footage of a hot pursuit of bad guys can often take us away from a larger message that I hope this show delivers to the viewing public: these people are working for you. Their jobs may at times seem tedious, sometimes even boring, but these individuals are often putting themselves in harm’s way and dealing with some really difficult situations that no one enjoys.

Television programming has long had a penchant for tying up all the loose ends at the end of an episode. In life, and most certainly the situations that ‘Border Security USA’ proposes to share with us, those loose ends often remained untied. By sharing the real-life experiences of DHS personnel with the public, perhaps we as a citizenry will have the courage to tie up some of those loose ends when it comes to immigration, border security, appropriate resources and enhanced respect and appreciation in areas where it is long overdue. That could be TV worth watching.

Congratulations to DHS and ABC on a great idea. I’ll be watching, and I hope others will too.

Posted in Border Security, Immigration & Visa Policy, Law Enforcement, Narcotics, Smuggling | Comments

Funding for Mexico Drug War Needs More Training Support

Thursday, May 29th, 2008

Senator Leahy’s office has announced that the Senate will likely pass a multi-million dollar aid package to Mexico to help that government fight violent narco-traffickers, but warned Mexico to expect certain strings to be attached, including on human rights matters.

This it is much more an education and training issue than an ‘investigation and punishment’ issue. The U.S. and Mexican governments should address this problem much earlier in the life cycle, because this is another instance where human rights abuses and the arrogance of security forces turn the oppressed against the security forces (and supporting governments), hampering the ability of the police and army to successfully do their jobs (in this case, prosecute the war on drugs).

From a ‘funds spent’ point of view, a small percentage spent on education and reform could create a much better Return on Investment than simply attaching strings – it’s the old, “Teach a man to fish” analogy.

Tags: mexico, war on drugs
Posted in Civil liberties & Privacy, Law Enforcement, Narcotics | Comments

GAO Study Validates C-TPAT While Offering Recommendations for Improvement

Tuesday, May 27th, 2008

Today the GAO released a report assessing the effectiveness of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) program that was implemented after 9/11 to help improve port security. C-TPAT is a key element of the Department’s layered strategic security model, combining partnerships with the private sector to gather critical information about cargo coming into the country and allowing DHS to implement intelligence-driven risk analysis of high-risk containers.

So when you hear certain segments of the political establishment decrying that DHS inspects only “five percent” of cargo coming into the United States, know that these folks are not being completely straightforward. By making such claims, they are either unaware of this critical risk-analysis program or, worse, purposefully leaving it out when they discuss supply chain security measures implemented by the United States.

Under C-TPAT, fully 100 percent of all cargo entering the United States is screened. By taking this risk-based approach, DHS can focus its resources on scanning and additional security measures precipitated by high-risk cargo rather than trying to treat all cargo – no matter how small the risk – the same and spreading limited resources past the breaking point.

Additionally, C-TPAT offers benefits for private sector partners, including ensuring that costly commerce is not unreasonably delayed during the shipping process. Importers that meet certain government-established vetting standards can reduce the level of cargo scrutiny their shipments undergo at over 300 of the nation’s air and sea ports. Since DHS was first stood up, experts across the political spectrum have highlighted the fact that homeland security cannot be successful without the engagement and involvement of the public and private sectors. C-TPAT is a model of such partnering.

As the GAO report shows, the system is not perfect. As with so many areas of homeland security, there are still a number of challenges that must be addressed and improved. Most critical among them is the lack of systematic follow-up by Customs and Border Protection officials to ensure that full implementation of their security requirements are met before granting benefits.

Additionally, I agree with the recommendation that CBP should make use of credible and independent third-party validators who can supplement the work of government inspectors and security personnel to ensure that participants are meeting government standards.

Anyone who reads this report, however, will be struck by the degree of improvement C-TPAT has undergone since it was formally adopted, as well as the sophistication of DHS’s overarching risk-based approach to security. It is the very opposite of the model called for by some critics, who want to replace this model with the so-called 100 Percent model. (I have critiqued this model in previous Security Debrief posts.)

As the GAO makes abundantly clear, any successful approach to security the supply chain must acknowledge the international nature of commerce today. Yet the mandate requiring foreign ports to physically scan 100 percent of all cargo is a go-it-alone approach that has already alienated some of our allies and could result in negative reactions – this at a time when foreign governments, including key allies, are beginning to adopt some of the processes that are the basis of C-TPAT. Consider the following conclusion asserted by the GAO report:

“In recent years, CBP’s international efforts have made C-TPAT a focus of other countries interested in developing similar customs-to-business partnership programs or considering arrangements with other countries to mutually accept the results of programs similar to C-TPAT. Foreign officials within the European Union and elsewhere have closely observed the C-TPAT program as one potential model for enhancing supply chain security. As we have previously reported and CBP has recognized, in security matters the United States is no longer self-contained, either in its problems or its solutions. The growing interpendence of nations requires policymakers to recognized the need to work in partnerships across boundaries to achieve vital national goals.”

Congress’s response? Not only to pass a flawed security model that attempts to physically scan every single one of the 12 million or so cargo containers that enter the United States, but one that also alienates potential allies in the war on terror. The vocal opposition to a 100% scanning regime by other governments suggests that collaboration may be significantly undermined if Congress does not take care to consider how its actions – no matter how politically attractive on the campaign trail – impacts our relationships around the globe.

Ironically, Congress inserted the 100-percent scanning mandate in the so-called 9/11 Commission bill, implying that 100-percent scanning was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. It wasn’t. In fact, the Commission advocated for the type of layered approach the C-TPAT entails.

The GAO’s findings support the C-TPAT approach. The study offers valuable recommendations for improving the system, but at no point does it support the arguments by some in Congress to abandon risk-based security for the flawed and costly “100 percent” model.

Tags: cargo scanning, maritime security, port security
Posted in Border Security, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Maritime & Seaport Security, Supply Chain Security | Comments

Is DC Turning Into a Police State?

Sunday, May 25th, 2008

I am an increasingly frequent visitor to DC, and am increasingly struck by the ever-offensive posture of the law enforcement entities in the nation’s capital. However, in the face of broad generalisation, there are stark contrasts between the practices of various agencies.

Three incidents spring to mind: the obvious use of armed response personnel in some convoys, the lack of manners displayed by the personnel on duty outside the White House, and the imminent arming of the Metropolitan police with rifles for patrol.

The use of force by the state, in any guise, must be professional and appropriate. Professional in that it achieves the aim in the most effective manner possible, using the best personnel, training, culture and equipment possible to service the needs of the community they serve, and appropriate in that it provides the necessary levels of protection and response given the range of threats, while balancing the rights of the individual.

There has been a recent spate of protection personnel in convoys riding with the windows down. The likely assertion will be that this is the most effective platform for response, and also acts as a deterrent. These arguments are open to significant challenge, but I will not enter into a discussion revealing personnel protection tactics and techniques. This practice inclines one to see Georgetown as Baghdad, or Belfast in the late 1980s, rather than the secure city it purports to be.

I have taken to running around the capital’s impressive buildings. Returning from a run a couple of days ago I went to walk on the White House side of the street immediately North of the House. In a particularly assertive and aggressive tone one of the uniformed personnel told me to, “Go around.” No please, no thank you, no sir, not even a madam. This might appear to be a petty complaint, but let me explain why it is not. Law enforcement serves the population, not the other way around. When the culture, which should strictly espouse those values and police them rigorously, loses sight of that, an air of entitlement begins to grow. An air of entitlement that begins to infiltrate other thinking; one day it’s, “Go around,” some time later a young man is dead in a hail of bullets because the police felt that they have every right to do so.

It was reported on Friday that the Metropolitan Police are going to begin patrolling with rifles. The Chief asserts that they need to be ready for an increased criminal capability when it comes. The possibility is created that by escalating, the Metro PD will encourage the use of heavier weaponry by criminal elements, and then assert that they were right when that increase takes place.

The deployment of heavier weaponry must be placed in context, a context which has not been widely disseminated thus far. Is the Chief intending to deploy the weapons on foot patrols, or to be held secure in patrol vehicles until needed by professionally trained officers? The former would be wildly inappropriate, the latter is be a sensible, controlled response to an increased threat, provided that, as promised, the weapons will only be used by appropriately trained officers.

Questions have been asked to explain when the rifles would have been used in a recent incident in DC. Such questions are either self-aggrandising, exploitative or naïve – by that logic New Orleans’ levees were just fine the way they were before Katrina, because the levees had never been broached thus far.

The Chief’s intention is clearly to have in place the capabilities to deal with any threat that arises; whilst the manner in which that protection is going to be provided is still open to description, she is acting in a proactive and responsible manner that speaks well of the thought process underpinning the Metro PD’s choices at the strategic level.

One can only hope that a policy of stricter thought processes be applied by the agency using Suburbans with rolled-down tinted windows that display their heavily armed personnel; if there is really a credible threat to the convoy occupants, rolled down windows in vehicles in that convoy position does not offer substantial tactical advantage; take the appropriate measures rather than half-hearted ones.

Finally, the uniformed personnel outside the White House are the face of the State, and all I saw last week was uniformed officers shouting at the visitors to stay off the road, showing no regard or respect to the citizens, and taxpayers, they serve.

Law Enforcement is both a career and a calling – we must be very careful that there exists and is maintained mutual respect between the serving and the served; the Use of Force policies and stances play an integral part in that relationship, and must be treated with the appropriate importance.

Tags: dc police
Posted in Law Enforcement | Comments

Cargo Scanning Needs Sensible Security

Thursday, May 22nd, 2008

As Chairman of the Safe Commerce Coalition, I’ve spoken to a number of audiences lately about the issue of cargo and supply chain security. I find myself often having to remind folks that when we stood up the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, we had a two-fold mission when it came to border security. First was to secure the borders. The second mission, which is sometimes forgotten, is to maintain the free and efficient flow of commerce and people.

At events such as the forum on cargo security that was sponsored by the Heritage Foundation earlier this month, I have been surprised by the fact that the second part of the DHS mission is increasingly forgotten on Capitol Hill. There is an alarming policy drift in Congress to attempt to provide “100 percent” security — however that might be defined — in many areas of homeland security. The most visible, and potentially damaging, is legislation passed last year by Congress to mandate the physical scanning of 100 percent of all cargo coming into the United States.

To give you a little perspective: About 12 million cargo containers enter the country every year.

Aside from the staggering financial costs to implement such a program, most security experts agree such a security model is wrong-headed. Cargo is most vulnerable to exploitation during times when it is not in motion – when it is sitting on the docks waiting to be moved, for example. The inefficiencies associated with the backups that will result from an effort to scan every container will ensure that more cargo is left in vulnerable positions for longer periods of time. Moreover, by focusing the huge amount of resources that will be required for such a program – not just financial, technical and equipment resources but human labor – will necessarily result in a deterioration of resources dedicated to other key (and more effective) security needs. It will also simply alert terrorist and criminal organizations to adapt to such a lumbering and predictable model by simply avoiding formal cargo containers as means of moving dangerous products. For example, the vast majority of narcotics that enter the United States don’t come through formal Customs inspections. They are smuggled into the country via a bewildering spectrum of routes.

Most importantly, the “100 percent” model ignores the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission (ironically, the supporters of this mandate included it in a bill referred to as the “9/11 Commission Act”). However, the 9/11 Commission expressly urged a greater reliance on risk-based and intelligence-driven strategies – including, quite specifically, cargo security.

The effort by current Members of Congress to drive the country away from this risk-based strategy not only goes against the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission; they go against the consensus of security experts as well as the strategic model on which the Department of Homeland Security has operated since its founding.

Perhaps it is good political rhetoric. When certain individuals raise the alarm that we are “only scanning 5 percent” of the cargo that enters the country, it sounds frightening indeed. It’s simply inaccurate, though, to suggest that 95 percent of the cargo entering the country without scrutiny. DHS screens – through a mixture of physical scanning, intelligence gathering, private-sector coordination and risk-based assessments – fully 100 percent of the cargo entering the country.

While the current trend towards 100 percent scanning may make for good politics, it does not make for good security.

Tags: cargo security, homeland security
Posted in Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Maritime & Seaport Security, Smuggling, Supply Chain Security, Transportation Security | Comments

Technoratipost

Thursday, May 22nd, 2008

<a href=”http://technorati.com/claim/vjbd4zgg” rel=”me”>Technorati Profile</a>

Posted in Featured Feed | Comments

The Tale of Two FEMA’s

Wednesday, May 21st, 2008

Every organization, regardless of whether it’s in the public or private sector, has its forward-leaning parts. In those parts of the organization, they often operate with three key factors in their operational culture – they foster an open dialogue with multiple parties; they willingly engage the public; and have operational transparency. But then there are those parts of an organization that you’re not really quite sure what they are up to. Such is the case with two important, but equally vital parts of the ‘new’ FEMA – its National Preparedness Directorate and its Logistics Management Directorate.

On Monday, May 19th, FEMA’s Preparedness Directorate, along with other DHS components and other partners hosted a Stakeholder Forum to discuss the National Response Framework (NRF) at the National Headquarters of the American Red Cross. Issued earlier this year, the NRF outlines how we will respond to ‘events’ and the respective roles that public and private sectors will play. With a broad cross section of attendees, the Forum worked to improve the understanding and engagement that is necessary if the ‘framework’ is to be operationally successful.

It was one more example of the ‘proactive’ manner that the Preparedness Directorate has taken since gaining ownership of the NRF some months ago. When the initial NRF version was released for comment in late 2007, it was greeted with a resounding ‘thumbs down.’ State, local, tribal and private sector officials charged that their previously offered thoughts and inputs had been ignored and after sending DHS and FEMA over 5,000+ comments to the draft NRF document, their voices were heard loud and clear. The result was a better document, but more importantly a document that FEMA’s partners (other public and private sector members) felt they had buy-in.

Since the incorporation of their feedback, FEMA, and in particular the Preparedness Directorate, has utilized as many possible opportunities to be pro-active and forward leaning in sharing the Framework. As a result, they are building credibility for the NRF, the process it lays out and the various people who must work in concert to make it all work when it is most important.

It’s a shame that the same forward leaning, pro-active behavior has not been adopted by its fellow FEMA component, the Logistics Management Directorate. It’s an understatement to say that Hurricane Katrina and the storms that followed in 2005 revealed gaping holes in FEMA’s logistical capacities. Following those storms and buttressed by Administration and Congressional reforms, the Agency amended its organizational chart and established a single focused unit dedicated to logistics that reports directly to the Administrator; they hired a logistics experienced Career-SES to lead the Directorate; they brought onboard a loaned-Executive from UPS to work with the Logistics Team; and established key relationships with Defense Logistics Agency and others to provide additional logistical support to its operations.

While the Agency’s response to recent smaller scale disasters has demonstrated significant improvement to its Logistics operations, there remains significant disconnects between the Logistics Directorate in its engagement with the public and private sectors who have a serious stake and interest in making the process work better for everyone. No where was this disconnect more evident than when the Director of New York City’s Office of Emergency Management stated at a recent joint FEMA-GSA Logistics meeting that NYC was taking care of its own logistics needs and would not seek FEMA’s assistance in this area.

Offers and overtures by some of the country’s most experienced logistics firms have either been ignored or entirely blown off. If a meeting does occur with the FEMA Logistics Team during one of their ‘Industry Days,’ it is usually staffed by junior level personnel (mostly contractors), who take notes, nod their heads at appointed times, collect the presentation charts and materials and offer in their best government-ese, “Thanks. Someone will get back to you,” and then never hear from them again.

Additionally, where the Preparedness Directorate has made themselves available for dialogue, interaction and public engagement on the issues in which they are involved, the relative radio silence of the Logistics team has been cause for growing concern and frustration for those offering prospective solutions that could offer a significant difference.

On those occasions where the Logistics Directorate leaders have been available at conferences or other meetings, the lack of any real information being communicated is even more frustrating. So is the fact that a number of its mid to senior-level personnel will not even share their business cards, phone numbers or email addresses to allow for any type of direct ollow-up.

This is not any way to build confidence in a part of the Agency that desperately needs to function well, especially when so much depends on it.

There is no doubt in anyone’s mind of the challenges associated with moving food, water and other materials to disaster locations at a moment’s notice to serve immediate and often desperate needs. Nor is there argument about the complexities of modeling the requirements or preparing for the various threat scenarios. I’m fairly certain that wrestling a rabid 900 pound gorilla in a cage has to be easier than operating FEMA Logistics, but if we are to have any semblance of confidence in this key Agency operation, we need to have an open dialogue, active public engagement and operational transparency that presently do not exist.

Those three elements are what helped improve the National Response Framework and have enabled it to form the stakeholder base that will allow the plan to be operational and effective. The same should hold true for Logistics. Nearly three years after Katrina, we deserve to have that kind of operation in place.

Tags: emergency preparedness, FEMA
Posted in Featured Feed | Comments

Observations from Another Bloggers Roundtable

Wednesday, May 21st, 2008

On Monday afternoon (May 19, 2008), I had the opportunity to participate in another Bloggers Roundtable with DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff and FEMA Administrator David Paulison. The theme for our discussions was the Department’s preparations for Hurricane Season 2008 and the readiness of the hurricane prone states/communities and their citizens for Mother Nature’s potential fury.

It was another spirited session with a lot of back and forth discussion between the principals and the bloggers, and it was obvious the confidence both men had in the steps their respective organizations have taken to be ready for whatever comes their way this year. Besides recounting the range of impressive statistics of what’s in place to be ready to go, both gentlemen issued fervent pleas that citizens take the time to also make themselves and their families ready. Sec. Chertoff went so far as to call individual readiness the “cornerstone of preparation.”

His point was echoed by Administrator Paulison when he offered that no matter how good the preparations undertaken by FEMA and the various state, local and tribal governments may be, nothing can replace a prepared individual.

Other key points that were offered during the Roundtable session included:

• A metric to assess individual preparedness is how many people listen to and (more importantly) follow evacuation orders when a storm or other event occurs. Citizens who disregard such direction and are in need of eventual rescue are taking first responders away from other important duties, such as providing assistance to those persons (elderly, infirm, disabled, etc.) who otherwise would be unable to evacuate on their own.

• FEMA’s IPAWS Program is being offered to state governors as the communications model to provide comprehensive emergency alert services to their citizens. DHS and FEMA are also providing flexibility on the use of grant funds to help states pay for these services if needed. Special mention was made regarding this program’s ability to reach the deaf and hearing impaired communities.

• While the Department has had success with its Ready Program, there is still a fundamental need to get the public educated and engaged on ‘preparedness.’ The nation’s schools could play a critical role here in helping spur acceptance, understanding and action on this issue. Sec. Chertoff cited the issue of global warming as an example of how young people have mobilized to address environmental issues in their homes and communities. Administrator Paulison pointed to the National Fire Protection Association’s ‘Learn Not to Burn’ Program that has helped educate school-age children on fire prevention and safety. Both saw a need for improved marketing to get the message out there and thought the media could do a lot more to drive this message home.

Sec. Chertoff also shared that whenever he or the Department goes out to talk about preparedness, charges of ‘fear-mongering’ are often hurled their direction. I couldn’t help but feel that this was one of those ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t situations’ that he and DHS often find themselves in. His response to this line of questioning was exceptional and ought to be referred to by his successors in future years when they are running the Department and encounter similar flak.

• Louisiana, the focus of so much ridicule for its performance during the Hurricanes of 2005, has made tremendous improvements in all areas of preparedness. While it has received significant attention and assistance by FEMA and others over the past couple of years, defining new evacuation routes and shelters, and other warning and response efforts, the State has graduated to a point where it is in better shape than ever before. Sec. Chertoff and FEMA Administrator Paulison credited Louisiana for stepping up to improve their response and recovery abilities.

• I had an interesting exchange with FEMA Administrator Paulison about the two FEMAs I have observed of late: the forward leaning and public-engaging National Preparedness Directorate that always seems willing to openly discuss items such as the National Response Framework; and the less than forthcoming and engaging Logistics Directorate. Per the DHS offered transcript, I have also cut and pasted that exchange for readers to review. Additionally, I have posted a separate Blog on the Security Debrief site that offers my observations about both of these two FEMA components in greater detail.

• In response to previous comments by Sec. Chertoff and Administrator Paulison about training and readiness for emergency shelters, I asked how they were prepared to deal with convicted sex offenders who could possibly occupy one of these facilities during an emergency. This hot button issue revealed itself during Hurricane Katrina when mass evacuations occurred and impromptu shelters were opened. It was obvious to me in the strong response and body language of both men that as long as they had watch over their respective programs, the term ‘never again’ should be applied on this issue. Administrator Paulison offered a convincing and forceful statement that FEMA had been working with the Justice Department and other law enforcement officials to meet this issue head-on, but he declined to go into specifics given the sensitivities of the matter. He emphasized that the Department and FEMA would be always mindful and respectful of the relevant privacy laws, but you could see and feel his commitment (and that of the Secretary’s) to ensuring public safety at shelters and throughout the disaster response and recovery process. I have posted the transcript of that exchange as well.

Like the first Bloggers Roundtable I participated in, the entire session projected the Department’s confidence and focus, especially when all of America starts looking at news reports about the forthcoming Hurricane Season. Both leaders left no doubt that their organizations are prepared and ready to go for 2008 Hurricane Season, as well as anything else that might come their way.

Tags: homeland security, preparedness
Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Emergency Preparedness & Response | Comments

Next Steps for Making Preparedness Everyone’s Concern

Tuesday, May 20th, 2008

This past weekend, John Solomon tackled tough issues about preparedness in a straightforward and honest way in a Washington Post piece that includes his recommendations for the top ten means by which the American public can become better prepared for emergencies and disasters.

During my 25 years in the public sector including my tenure overseeing preparedness at DHS and now through my involvement in similar issues in the private sector, there has been so much progress in our nation’s preparedness and response capabilities – but as Mr. Solomon points out, America has a long way to go. Below are my thoughts on some areas that deserve our focus going forward.

Preparedness is not simply a responsibility of government. Government cannot be all things to all people at all times, and preparedness is not an exclusive responsibility of government agencies. We should not – and cannot – pretend otherwise. Inherent in the principles of our nation is the premise that businesses and individual citizens will do what is necessary to make our society better. Public leaders must acknowledge the limitations of government in a disaster – but before a crisis strikes. Our elected leaders must provide their citizens with clear expectations of what services they can expect from government in the midst of a crisis and, more importantly, what is expected from them as citizens. We continue to over promise “that everything will be taken care of” at the expense of undermining the incentive for the American people to understand the reality they will face in a crisis and preventing them from taking necessary steps to be better prepared. Our ability to respond to citizen needs is less a policy debate and more about realizing the limitations of government capabilities in a nation as large and diverse as ours.

Increased collaboration between the public and private sectors. We need to be leveraging the resources of the private sector – encompassing infrastructure, talent, resources and more – to complement the public sector’s core responsibilities to keep our citizens safe. Private businesses and organizations at every level – ranging from large Fortune 500 corporations to the local corner store – have both a vested interest and inherent capabilities they can leverage to help their communities in the initial aftermath of a disaster.. Without contingency plans and open communication among business and other non-governmental groups, though, much of this leverage is wasted, leaving uncoordinated and fragmented response efforts. Both government and business leaders need to use foresight to recognize potential threats and act collaboratively to ensure resiliency within our communities.

Better public education campaigns. DHS’s Ready campaign made great progress in the effort to educate the American public about what to do for their families in case of an emergency. Yet the number of people who continue to lack such a plan is truly amazing – and is really frightening in light of recent disasters in China and Myanmar . Local and state governments – as well as the private sector – must take initiative to bring preparedness issues down to the micro level in a way that relates to the everyday lives of Americans. A farmer in Indiana is unlikely to pay attention to information tips about securing his house for a hurricane, but would see a much stronger connection to information about how to respond to a flash floods or tornadoes. Public education campaigns need to bridge this awareness gap to connect with everyday citizens, changing the “it will never happen to me” mentality to one that recognizes potential threats and plans accordingly.

Incorporating (more) technology into preparedness efforts. Our information-saturated world keeps us on constant sensory overload – we consume news constantly: checking our Blackberries on the way to work, hitting refresh on our Internet browsers throughout the day only to go home listening to satellite radio and then turning to an evening of high-definition television complete with scrolling headlines on the bottom of our screens. Public awareness has become inseparable from technology, a fact that FEMA and other state and regional governments have recognized in their increased use of text messaging and SMS alerts to keep citizens up-to-speed on the latest emergency notifications. These steps are admirable, but there is still room for greater improvement – and we cannot overlook populations that lack the technology and/or the physical capability to receive and understand these types of alerts. Technology is only as good as the understanding of how our 21st Century American society gets its news and information.

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

A New Voice Offers Reflection

Monday, May 19th, 2008

With just days before the official opening of Hurricane Season 2008, Sunday’s Washington Post Outlook Section [May 18, 2008] provided an excellent guest editorial on the role of preparedness. Written by John Solomon, the piece (“It’s an Emergency. We’re Not Prepared”) offers a citizen’s view of where we are as a nation in our readiness to deal with the next disaster.

Rather than engage in the traditional mode of finger pointing at the Administration, DHS, FEMA or at state and local leaders, Solomon instead held up a mirror to his readers to look at their reflection and ask where they are at when it comes to their individual and family preparedness. While this approach may not seem to be overly insightful, I found his take rather refreshing. Here is an average citizen, using the various resources and programs available to him to ‘prepare’ himself who discovered that we all have got to take getting ready more seriously and get more involved as a national community.

Again, this may not seem to be overly novel but let’s face some cold, hard facts… Since 9/11 and even after the 2005 Hurricanes, we’ve had speech after speech, testimony after testimony, blog after blog rant about what the public and private sectors ought to be doing to be prepared. Much of the discussion has been valuable, but in our efforts to prepare for the next ‘big one,’ we’ve avoided scrutinizing where preparedness ought to begin – the individual. As a result, we’ve over indulged in ‘nanny-fication.’ We expect that someone else is going to take care of everything for us when a ‘bad day’ strikes. No one – regardless of where they live or what they do – should be so uninformed, busy, callous or arrogant to ‘outsource’ their own preparedness.

There are certainly individuals (elderly, poor, disabled, other vulnerable populations) who need an extra hand looking out for them, but we all bear the fundamental responsibility for our own welfare and well-being. It isn’t exactly popular for politicians and senior emergency managers to candidly tell private citizens to ‘get their acts together.’ It’s much easier to talk about ‘reform and reorganization’ and engage in finger-pointing for disaster response failures.

Solomon’s departure from these overused and often ineffective tactics is probably why his words seem so refreshing. Rather than throwing someone or some program under the bus, he offers some blunt, frank and pointed thoughts that force his readers to look in the mirror and ask whether they are prepared or not.

I’m guessing there were a number of readers who were not exactly comfortable with that reflection. I can only hope, as I’m sure Mr. Solomon does, that they work on improving their reflections before it’s too late. It could make a big difference to their lives and many others.

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

The political hypocrisy of immigration

Monday, May 19th, 2008

Spencer Hsu has a good article in the Washington Post that highlights the political schizophrenia that exists among the political class in this country with regard to illegal immigration. In the abstract, the majority of Americans demand that government crackdown on illegal immigration. In the concrete reality of such crackdowns, American communities and local economies can be gravely disrupted, producing inevitable outcries from local politicians.

Members of Congress cynically pass laws creating ever new restrictions on illegal immigration and setting up the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to enforce those laws, then turn around and criticize ICE for doing the job they established it to do.

On the campaign trail governors talk of the “broken” federal system that allows illegal immigrants to pour into the country but then condemn the Department of Homeland Security when raids occur in their home states. Others actively undermine immigration law by setting up sanctuary cities.

You’ll notice that most of criticism is safely leveled at ICE and DHS, where agents and employees simply try to carry out the job that they were sworn to do. Little self-reflection are accountability regarding the lack of leadership and political consensus-building occurs.

Mayors and governors seem unembarrassed to go after the federal government for a “broken” system while ignoring, in some cases, and nurturing in others, communities of illegal immigrants in their own jurisdictions. At the same time, they don’t have the political grit to openly call for looser immigration laws that would allow more immigrants to enter the country lawfully and to take jobs and build families without fear.

In a similar vein, Congress has become a satire of itself in regards to immigration, regularly exposing the hypocrisy of an institution that passes laws to “secure the border” and then failing to provide any level of adequate funding. (I am still surprised that the mainstream media have not written more extensively on the notion that ICE – or any other federal law enforcement agency – has the manpower or financial resources to carry out the frequent demands of politicians and elected officials who call for the wholesale deportation of illegal immigrants already living in America. Can it be done? Yes, but let’s not kid ourselves that it can be done with the 6,000 or so agents at ICE – most of whom are tasked with jobs involving a vast array of other responsibilities ranging from weapons and narcotics smuggling to financial crime. A massive tax hike and increase in funding will be required, something no politician wants to acknowledge.)

Hsu’s story exposes the typical hypocrisy:

“They don’t go after employers. They don’t put CEOs in jail,” complained the Postville Community Schools superintendent, David Strudthoff, 51, who said the sudden incarceration of more than 10 percent of the town’s population of 2,300 “is like a natural disaster — only this one is manmade.” … Congressman Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) said enforcement efforts against corporations that commit immigration violations have “plummeted” under the Bush administration. “Until we enforce our immigration laws equally against both employers and employees who break the law, we will continue to have a problem,” he said.

Perhaps Congressman Braley is unfamiliar with the E-Verify program, which targets employers, along with DHS’s plan to fine companies who are found to be in violation. Perhaps he is unaware of the government’s case against Tyson Foods, or the raids against Wal-Mart. Perhaps he is unaware of the fact that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is actually suing DHS to prevent these stringent new measures against CEOs and their companies.

More likely he doesn’t want to be bothered with such distractions. The idea that that arresting nearly 400 laborers from an agroprocessing plant would cripple the company doesn’t seem to enter his political calculations when he complains about the government not taking action against CEOs.

It’s really all beside the point. It appears that political posturing will take precedence over reform of one kind or another until the politicians feel safe enough to know how to vote. The issue itself isn’t all that difficult: We can either enforce the laws on the books or reform them. The politics behind it, though – that is another story. Admittedly, there is no easy vote on this one. But until we get leadership from our elected officials at both the state and federal levels, we’ll continue to get more of the same old hypocrisy.

Tags: Immigration & Visa Policy, worksite enforcement
Posted in Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Immigration & Visa Policy | Comments

Testing the Feasibility of Biometric Control Solutions

Thursday, May 15th, 2008

Each day, airports work to ensure that air travel is safe and secure. In fact, it is the industry’s number one priority. Partnering with airlines, tenants, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and federal, state and local law enforcement, airports are working aggressively to enhance security.

Since the tragic events of 9/11, aviation security has been fairly prominent in the headlines, and therefore, has also drawn the attention of Congress. While TSA recently announced the start of its seven airport pilot project to test employee screening as provided in the FY08 Omnibus, Congress has begun to turn its attention to how technology may provide possible security solutions.

Last week, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, introduced the “Biometric Enhancement and Airport Vulnerability Reduction Act of 2008,” which would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a study on how airports can transition to biometric control systems for airport workers who have unescorted access to secure or sterile areas of the an airport.

Since November of last year, ACI-NA has worked closely with the House Homeland Security Committee as it has sought to introduce legislation regarding biometric technology at airports. While a few airports such as Seattle-Tacoma have already installed interoperable biometric systems, there is much work to be done regarding how biometrics can best be used to improve security at access control points.

ACI-NA and the airport industry as a whole applaud the Chairman’s approach of directing a study before mandating a solution. The unique traits of airports, both collectively and individually, call for a thorough examination of all considerations before a single biometric control solution for airport workers is decided upon. I was also pleased to see language in the bill creating an Aviation and Airport Security Working Group that would include airport representation to advise the DHS Secretary and TSA on this proposal. ACI-NA strongly believes that airports should be involved from the onset in this initiative by recommending best practices and identifying feasibility concerns.

Again, the airport industry takes very seriously its responsibility to the traveling public to provide safe and secure facilities. This includes working to test new and innovative technologies to enhance our security systems.

Tags: Aviation and airport security
Posted in Aviation and airport security | Comments

Turning Point in Colombia’s Drug Trade?

Wednesday, May 14th, 2008

Yesterday, Colombian officials announced that they were extraditing 14 suspected drug traffickers to the United States to face a host of charges ranging from conspiracy to import to cocaine manufacturing.

Within the law enforcement and drug control community, the Colombian government’s move is unprecedented. The country has long maintained a tradition of refusing to extradite even its most notorious drug cartel leaders.

The government’s break from this standard signals a potentially significant turning point for the Colombian drug trade. Historically, the threat of a prison sentence has done little to deter citizens from engaging in the illicit drug trade. Colombia’s penal system is widely known to be less than harsh, and drug cartel leaders can effectively run their operations from within the confines of the country’s prisons. Notorious drug lord Pablo Escobar was widely reported to have lived a life of luxury in his penthouse-like cell, but greatly feared the threat of U.S. extradition because of the far more serious consequences he would face.

Colombia’s leaders should be commended for taking steps to follow through on its extradition agreement. Hopefully, the possibility of a fair trial in the U.S. judicial system will be more successful in curbing the country’s dangerous drug trade than the practice of putting up drug lords in hotel-style accommodations.

Tags: DEA, drug trafficking, Narcotics
Posted in Law Enforcement, Narcotics | Comments

Vigilantes at ICE

Wednesday, May 14th, 2008

Recently when reading an online publication called Immigration Daily at www.ilw.com, I came across an editorial titled “Vigilantes at ICE.” This website advertises itself as “the news source for immigration attorneys” and claims to have over 17,000 subscribers. I have been a subscriber to Immigration Daily since my retirement because the company I now work for does consulting on “worksite compliance”. Although I do not agree with all that I read on ILW.COM, I find the majority of the content to be informative.

However, this editorial, which appeared in the site’s May 8, 2008 edition, pushed me over the top. In summary, the editorial was critical of recent ICE worksite enforcement initiatives, indicating that the agency was operating outside its intended mission – national security – and specifically, was failing in its goals to protect the U.S. from the next terrorist attack.

The editorial was personally insulting to me and greatly mis-represented reality. It stated that ICE had abandoned its core mission by “hounding busboys and gardeners” and “by squandering away valuable national security resources on harassing the undocumented, ICE appears ready to accept full responsibility for the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil”. Among other misrepresentations, the editorial further stated “al-Qaeda is our enemy….something apparently not clear to those at ICE.”

Although resources are limited, no one has forgotten the “core mission” of national security that is the number one priority for ICE and the Department as a whole.

All programs, initiatives, and operations are evaluated in that context, with resources allocated to those areas first and foremeost. National security resources are not being “squandered” away “on harassing the undocumented”.

The statement “ICE appears ready to accept full responsibilty for the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil” was reckless, ill-informed and an insult to all ICE employees. Worksite enforcement, which is the topic of the editorial, is only one of a multitude of important ICE enforcement initiatives.

The statement “Al-Qaeda is our enemy…..something apparently not clear to those at ICE” is quite simply outrageous. I can assure you that all ICE employees, particularly those who are based in New York City, know all toow ell that al-Qaeda is our enemy.

Immigration enforcement is and will continue to be one of the most important and controversial issues this election year and beyond. To question the dedication and motives of ICE employees in the post-911 period even as they are enforcing an important employer verification program is unwarranted and unfortunate.

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

Global Entry – Risk Management Alive and Well at CBP

Tuesday, May 13th, 2008

The U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security announced that the United States will begin deploying enhanced technology to expedite security checks and immigration processing of pre-screened, international travelers, saying “These efforts demonstrate again that we can design border security initiatives to both enhance homeland security and facilitate global commerce and travel,” noting that “the success of the US-VISIT program, particularly in deploying biometrics technologies and processes has given us the confidence to move forward with voluntary expedited travel programs using biometrics.”

A new DHS initiative in 2008? Well, yes and no.

The quotes above are actually from one of former Secretary Tom Ridge’s final announcements in January of 2005, when he announced that vetted travelers would be able to use biometrically-enhanced kiosks to confirm the identity of enrollees returning to the U.S. Rolling out an initiative developed by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection anxious to facilitate the way low-risk travelers passed through its inspection process, Secretary Ridge and his policy team were hopeful that this initial pilot with the Dutch government would be the first step in a web of interoperable trusted traveler programs.

However, Secretary Ridge soon departed DHS and the new leadership placed the international registered traveler program on hold while it focused on a range of other significant international travel issues, such as moving US-VISIT to 10-fingerprint collection, strengthening the Visa Waiver Program, and broadening the use of passenger name record data for security reviews. CBP’s initiative also suffered from general unease within DHS about the domestic Registered Traveler program operated by private sector vendors and overseen by the Transportation Security Administration.

However, CBP continued to press the case for its risk management tool, private sector interests convinced Congress to reauthorize the program with authority to collect an enrollment fee in 2007, and DHS and the Department of State rolled out a series of facilitation programs under the Secure Borders and Open Doors framework initially announced in January of 2006. Finally, DHS approved the CBP initiative earlier this year which was branded Global Entry and announced in April of this year.

Yesterday, CBP began accepting online applications – submitting mine took about 20 minutes and cost $100. Assuming no problems with the background check, I will appear for an interview with a CBP officer and then be enrolled in the program. Starting next month, upon arrival at a participating U.S. airport, enrollees will skip the processing line and confirm their identity by matching fingerprints against those provided during the application process and providing their passports; both forms of identification will be compared to applicable watchlists each day.

On its surface, the plan seems to align with the original vision behind the project. However, for Global Entry to fulfill its potential, it needs four critical enhancements;

1) More locations – OMB has only approved pilot programs at three airports (JFK, Dulles, Houston), but the program needs to be expanded to include all airports with significant amount of international arrival traffic. Congress appears willing to provide CBP with a one-time infusion of funds to purchase necessary enrollment and verification equipment before the program becomes self-funding.

2) Convenient enrollment – Companies or other organizations able to bring a sizable number of enrollees to CBP should be able to request enrollment at their place of business.

3) Coordination with domestic RT – Any individual who can pass the CBP Global Entry enrollment test should automatically be enrolled in the domestic RT program if they are willing to pay the marginal cost of participation.

4) Foreign enrollees – DHS has understandably been cautious about offering enrollment to foreign visitors but has come up with the right formula to allow foreign guests to enroll if their host government has a robust law enforcement information-sharing regime with DHS and offers a similar program to U.S. travelers.

Particular credit goes to CBP program director John Wagner and his superiors at CBP’s Office of Field Operations and the DHS Office of Policy which finally green-lighted the program. I am looking forward to providing a first-hand report next month on the rest of the application process and program in action.

Tags: Transportation Security
Posted in Border Security, Transportation Security | Comments

Ships, Trucks, and Resiliency

Monday, May 12th, 2008

Resiliency is emerging as the underlying theme for protecting infrastructure, integrated in both policy drafting and boots-on-the-ground tactics across a number of different transportation industries.

Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to deliver a speech at NAVCENT’s Maritime Infrastructure Protection Conference in Bahrain. My task was to outline a successful policy framework for critical maritime infrastructure. After presenting four postulates and an observation at the beginning of the speech, I then wove together a rather wonkish speech about how to look at protecting maritime infrastructure from a policy perspective. While there were plenty of gates, guards, guns, perimeters, and tactics presentations, the organizers brought in enough strategic experts to make the point that it takes both a coherent policy framework and nuts and bolts folks on the ground to successfully protect critical infrastructure.

The five points that I made in my opening comments were:

• Protection without resilience is a fools game.
• Resiliency and protection work better when there is a rational policy framework.
• Resiliency and protection work better when there is a clear business case.
• Resiliency and protection need to be “baked in”.
• It’s all about risk.

Many of these themes resurfaced when I attended the American Trucking Association’s Trucking Security Conference in Long Beach, California, last week. While I think my wonkish comments on maritime infrastructure protection are equally applicable to our trucking industry and our highway infrastructure, this conference was all about nuts and bolts. Given that I was in the mood to consume nuts and bolts, I came away with several key points:

• We are incredibly dependent on the trucking industry and the highway infrastructure to meet our daily needs, so the system had better be resilient.
• The nature and fragmentation of the trucking industry is an advantage with respect to resiliency, but we don’t have a strong policy framework.
• Implementing security measures is most successful when there are strong business incentives.
• The best security is indeed “baked in”.
• It’s all about risk.

It may be simplistic, but when I thought about what I’d learned about the trucking industry and what I knew about protection and resiliency, I came up with two key observations:

• Trucking industry security measures that protect against the threat of terrorism parallel the security measures that protect against theft, fraud, embezzlement, etc. which are created to protect business interests. The insurance industry gets this and can be strong ally in our nation’s efforts to protect this vital industry.
• The fragmentation of the industry is a positive factor for resiliency only if there is excellent information flow within the industry and among its key stakeholders and the government.

Whether it’s maritime infrastructure or highways and the trucking industry, there are at least two parts to achieving resiliency. First is the framework that government must provide that includes overarching policy and mechanisms for information sharing. Second is the industry’s ability to translate the business incentives for improving security and resiliency into concrete measures that bring about results.

Tags: Transportation Security
Posted in Transportation Security | Comments

When does breaking the law become a national security threat?

Sunday, May 11th, 2008

In a story placed prominently above the fold of the Washington Post’s Sunday edition, the federal immigration system finds itself under new criticism. Frankly, there is no question that the facilities meant to hold illegal immigrants is grossly underfunded. The result, as the Post story attempts to show, is poor treatment of the detainees. The vast majority of them do not pose a national security threat to the country, and they deserve better treatment, as the Post well explains.

Unfortunately, the Post story undermines its credibility in its overzealous attempt to prove its case. Rather than focusing on the facts, and letting them speak for themselves (as was done well with the opening examination of the case of Yusif Osman), the writers feel the need to take it a step further and make sure the reader doesn’t miss the capital-C Conclusions of this long long article. It’s as if they didn’t trust the readers to draw balanced and reasonable conclusions by themselves.

For example: The writers note that the detainees have less access to lawyers than convicted murderers and fewer comforts than terrorist suspects at Guantanomao Bay. (But offer no evidence of this.) And this: “But they [the illegal immigrants] are not terrorists. Most are working-class men and women or indigent laborers who made mistakes that seem to pose no threat to national security: a Salvadoran who bought drugs in his 20th year of poverty in Los Angeles; a legal U.S. resident from Mexico who took $50 for driving two undocumented day laborers into a border city. Or they are waiting for political asylum from danger in their own countries; a Somali without a valid visa trying to prove she would be killed had she remained in her village; a journalist who fled the Congo out of fear for his life, worked as a limousine driver and fathered six American children, but never was able to get the asylum he sought.”

Perhaps all of these cases are as cut-and-dried as the writers at the Post would have us believe. It is unfortunate, however, that they did not respect the abilities of their readers to draw their own conclusions rather than having it fed to them with such a transparent intention of portraying the undocumented workers (let us never use the word illegal immigrant) as victims only and having done nothing to contribute to their plights.

None of these individuals, the Post tells us, presented national security threats. Certainly it is hard to argue that any of these folks were necessarily working on behalf of Al Qaeda or the FARC. Still, a few more questions –since the Post went out of its way to assert that these folks weren’t threats to society – might have been helpful.

Why were those seeking political asylum denied asylum? During my tenure at ICE, we were constantly underwater with individuals seeking to game the system, and the appeal to political asylum is one of the more popular approaches. It would have been good journalism to have at least noted why the man was unable to get asylum but had managed to stay in the United States long enough to father six children.

Regarding the Salvadoran in his 20th year of poverty who was arrested for buying drugs: Was this his first arrest for drugs? Was he busted with a little marijuana or was it something more deadly, like heroin or meth? What quantity – enough for a night on the town just for himself or enough perhaps to sell to children in his neighborhood? There are a number of questions that should have been answered here because the implication seems to be that this man who was arrested for some kind of drug activity shouldn’t be in jail – nevermind that American citizens could expect to possibly face jail time for similar illegal activities.

More troubling, particularly in light of the Post’s assertion that these individuals posed no national security threat, is the individual who was caught smuggling humans across the border. Human smuggling is, indeed, the very definition of a national security threat.

The case is framed in such a way as to suggest that there is obviously no threat. Hey, he was driving a couple of guys across the border for a quick buck. And, indeed, it is likely true that there is nothing more to this story. However, it is probably equally true that the man who was illegally driving these two unknown immigrants across the border did not bother to ask too many questions. He was breaking the law, and in the course of breaking the law, it’s best not to ask a lot of awkward questions of your co-conspirators.

Why does this matter? Because despite the stereotypes in the media, not every terrorist is going to look like he or she comes from Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. They don’t have official “Member of the International Brotherhood of Terrorism” identification cards. They will say things like, “I just need to get a job to feed my family” rather than “Will you help sneak me across the border so that I can blow up the Pentagon?” They will look like Middle Eastern in some cases, yes, but they will also look German or French or Canadian or American or Mexican in others. They will look like me and you.

One of the most tired questions asked by reporters about border security – especially of programs like US VISIT or SEVIS, etc. – is: “How many terrorists has this program caught?” The inference is that if you answer none, then the program is an obvious failure.

However, if SEVIS had existed in 1993 or 2001, it is entirely plausible that neither of those murderous attacks would have occurred because a significant number of the terrorist plotters came into the country using student visas. Had SEVIS been in place, these individuals would have set off alarms the moment they did not show up on campus, and they would have been tracked by federal agents and sent home. However, we would not have known that we “caught” a terrorist. We would have only known that some guy wanting to “attend college” in the United States had been turned away at the border or sent home shortly thereafter.

I do not know why the U.S. Citizen from Mexico decided to smuggle two illegal immigrants into the United States. Probably, he just wanted the 50 bucks. Probably he asked no questions. And a guy who is willing to smuggle in certain humans or certain contraband (whether he thinks he’s just moving some day laborers or maybe some drugs) is most decidedly a threat. If you can smuggle in a day laborer, you can smuggle in anybody – whether you know who they are or not. If you can smuggle in a little dope, you can smuggle in much more dangerous items hidden in that dope.

One day, a terrorist who doesn’t look like a “terrorist” (whatever that means) is going to ask some unethical fellow to smuggle him into the United States. He’ll say he just needs a job. And then he’ll be in the United States, unknown to the authorities and connecting with others who managed to get into the country through similar vulnerabilities in our border security.

Or who knows. Maybe he already has.

Tags: Immigration & Visa Policy, Smuggling
Posted in Border Security, Immigration & Visa Policy, Smuggling | Comments

Walking a Tightrope in Denver

Thursday, May 8th, 2008

The right to assemble and speak freely, to protest, is enshrined in the Constitution. A raft of organisations in Denver are being represented by the ACLU in suing the City of Denver and the Secret Service, in order to establish where and how they can exercise their rights to protest or promote a range of issues during the upcoming Democratic Convention.

By now, the City of Denver and Secret Service should have conducted their version of an Intelligent Preparation of the Environment, and identified the areas it – through the City of Denver police – can best facilitate and control protestors in line with that security plan. The integration of executing counterterrorism tactics with preserving the rights of free speech and protest is a tricky concept, particularly when a fixed location and environment, known to all months in advance, is being used.

There are two apparently conflicting agendas at work here, agendas that are not as nearly conflicting as they first appear. The Secret Service and the City of Denver’s first priority is the safety of the delegates, attendees, citizens of Denver and the protestors themselves, as well as that of the security personnel and police officers. The protestors wish to be able to demonstrate effectively, and make to be heard.

There is an acceptable middle road that should be acceptable to every party. My advice is that at this stage there should be meetings ongoing between those who wish to protest and those officials responsible for security and policing. The protestors should be outlining their aspirations for what they wish to achieve from their protesting at the Convention, and the Security Service and City of Denver outlining at this point what the absolute limits are going to be, and that there is an ongoing plan to create the ability for the protesting groups to be given the platforms they need.

As the security planning develops, and the intelligence picture becomes clearer, an iterative plan can then be developed that facilitates the security of everyone involved, as well as maintains enough secrecy to protect the vital information.

As I have mentioned ad naseum, protesting is about having one’s voice heard. If people suspect their voice will not be heard, they will turn to more extreme acts in order to do so. At this point there should be an undertaking given about the baseline restrictions and possibilities for protesting, in order to prevent preemptive escalation of protesting intent, and to smooth the way for a co-operative, rather than combative, conference.

Posted in Law Enforcement | Comments