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

Archive for June, 2008

Interweaving Risk Management with Resiliency

Monday, June 30th, 2008

On Wednesday, June 25, 2008, I testified in front of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection. The hearing, entitled “The Goodyear Explosion: Ensuring Our Nation is Secure by Developing a Risk Management Framework for Homeland Security,” focused specifically on the recent explosion at a Goodyear plant in Texas where a plant worker was killed and several others were injured. The Goodyear explosion was undoubtedly tragic; however there is another lesson to be learned about managing risk. That lesson is one of resiliency.

Several witnesses at the hearing either directly or indirectly emphasized the point that it is impossible to prevent all disaster, whether natural, terrorist, or accidental. This point highlights that managing risk must be coupled with the idea of resiliency – the “bounce back” after a disaster, the capacity to maintain continuity of activities even in the face of threats, disaster, and adversity.

The hearing was a positive step with regards to shifting the mindset of disaster preparedness in the U.S.; however, it seems that it will be difficult for Congress to wrap its head around the idea of resiliency with regards to risk-management.

Congress seems to lack a fundamental thought process: policy initiatives must function on the basis of risk, not politics or so-called “fairness.” Recent measures to institute 100 percent cargo scanning for in-bound cargo as well as out-of-control state homeland security grant spending demonstrate that Congress misses the mark when it comes to notion of risk-based homeland security policies. Resiliency recognizes three fundamental notions (1) not all threats can be prevented, (2) scarce resources should be directed toward the areas most at risked, and (3) when disaster does strike, society must be prepared to continue on.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee expressed discontent over risk-management efforts at DHS. Her strategy seems dedicated to the same old notions of risk – overly-federalized and lacking the notion of resiliency. She did, however, emphasize the lack of a clear legislative mandate from Congress with regards to this issue. Erratic congressional oversight, filled with conflicting priorities, can only impede further progress towards a viable risk-management strategy at DHS.

Congress must provide a clear legislative mandate that ensures that risk management policies are interwoven with the concept of resiliency; or else disasters will continue to serve a crippling blow to our nation’s infrastructure and overall way of life.

Tags: risk management
Posted in Emergency Preparedness & Response | Comments

GAO Concludes 100 Percent Scanning Will Make United States Less Safe

Friday, June 27th, 2008

The Government Accountability Office released a study this month on the merits of last year’s legislation mandating that 100 percent of all cargo containers be scanned before entering the United States. Much of the opposition to and public debate about this mandate has centered around the fact that the technology does not yet exist. That’s not really the salient point. No, the technology to do the job correctly does not yet exist, but it likely will at some point. The problem with 100 percent scanning goes much broader and deeper than mere technology.

The most glaring problem with the “100 percent” model is that it goes against the globally accepted consensus that a risk-analysis and layered approach is a far more comprehensive and effective security model than the concept of “100 percent scanning.”

The “100 percent” model would focus on a single vulnerability (in this case cargo containers that enter through official channels at our ports); by narrowly focusing limited resources on an effort to search, scan and analyze every single container, no matter how unlikely the chances it would contain dangerous materials, we would reduce resources and focus on other security vulnerability points, many of them more critical than container security.

Not only would this dramatic shift in our approach to homeland security undermine the Department of Homeland Security’s established security strategies, it would upend international security practices by mandating foreign ports to also implement these less effective tactics.

Noting that our international partners – including the full spectrum of government, security and industry organization – assert that 100 percent scanning is “inconsistent with widely accepted risk management principles,” the GAO report concludes our allies around the globe also believe that “the requirement could potentially reduce security.”

Indeed, the World Customs Organizations said flatly that the mandate is “tantamount to abandonment of risk management.”

The Association of German Seaport Operators came to similar conclusions with an April 2008 white paper asserting that implementing 100 percent scanning “would undermine mutual, already achieved security successes and hinder maritime security by depriving resources from areas that present a more significant threat and warrant closer scrutiny.”

Congress has passed a potentially dangerous law with its 100 percent scanning mandate by undermining more effective security strategies already in place. It goes against the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission to implement risk-based security strategies (despite the irony of having been passed with the so-called 9/11 Act). There is still time to revise the law in such a way as to meet everyone’s concerns, but that window of opportunity is closing.

Posted in Border Security, Maritime & Seaport Security, Science & Technology, Supply Chain Security, Transportation Security | Comments

U.S. Supreme Court Says No to Environmental Groups

Friday, June 27th, 2008

Earlier this week the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by environmental groups in a case brought to slow the progress on the construction of the border fence, a giant step forward in the effort to secure America’s borders. This was not only good for border security, but it also respected the legislative authority of Congress.

Congress granted DHS environmental-waiver authority in 2005. This waiver accelerates border fence construction by allowing DHS to bypass requirements of certain environmental laws. Environmental groups,
recognizing an opportunity to impede this progress, decided to challenge the ability of DHS to use the waiver for the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area.

DHS invoking a waiver granted by Congress does not mean that the environment will suffer as a result or that DHS will take environmentally harmful measures; it simply means that DHS is allowed to bypass bureaucratic red tape and make meaningful progress on border fence construction. Environmental groups will almost certainly hail this decision as a choice by the Supreme Court to degrade the environment. In reality, this decision protects the valid exercise of legislative power by Congress.

The Plaintiff environmental groups are not in this debate to save the environment. Saving the environment is merely a thin veil by the left to prevent any attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration in the United States. An earlier piece “Moving Forward to Secure the Border” emphasizes that a broken border leads to a plethora of problems including drug smuggling and human trafficking. These problems will only increase if groups who seek to impede progress on border security succeed.

Tags: Border Security
Posted in Featured Feed | Comments

Al Kamen Wins Today’s Lame Snark Award

Wednesday, June 25th, 2008

Today’s Lame Snark award goes to Al Kamen of the Washington Post. He righteously seized on an email sent out by DHS highlighting an Associated Press story in which citizens praised FEMA for its effective response to the floods in the Midwest.

The headline of the original story that ran in the Associated Press was as follows: “Flood victims: FEMA really doing heckuva job this time.” DHS sent the article to its email list, and appeared to be a good sport about it by highlighting the notorious “You’re doing a heckuva job” comment made by President Bush during Katrina.

Kamen actually takes up ink in the Post to report that the email was “swimming in irony.”

FEMA must be feeling really good about its performance during the recent floods in the Midwest. Otherwise, how to explain the Department of Homeland Security’s move Monday touting this Associated Press headline:

“Flood Victims Say FEMA Is Doing a Heckuva Job.”

Maybe they’ve forgotten the last time FEMA did so well? Or maybe FEMA always does a heckuva job, with or without Brownie.

Does Kamen really think he’s the only genius who made the connection to Katrina? Or does he not understand the definition of “irony” (or perhaps “swimming”)? The AP headline wasn’t subtle. It’s not like the folks at DHS didn’t make the connection?

Rather than giving the beleagured folks at DHS a little credit for (a) doing a good job in response to the latest disaster and (b) having a reasonable sense of humility and humor for playing along with the heckuva ribbing, Kamen plays the email straight. His point is unclear. He’s either chiding the folks at DHS for either being so dumb as to not get the joke, or he’s asserting that no matter what lessons have been learned or how good of a job they ever do again in the future, they will never be given a pat on the back.

Either way, the irony-laden self righteousness of the Post’s DC gossip columnist wins him today’s Snark award.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Management & Administration | Comments

More Mandates, Less Funding; Tastes Great, Less Fillling

Tuesday, June 24th, 2008

Fellow Security Debrief blogger David Olive wrote recently about the conflicting messages and mandates that flow from the 86 conflicting and contending homeland security committees in Congress. The latest example of this Hamlet-like system of self-contradiction comes from the House Appropriations Committee, which complains that US Immigration and Enforcement spends too much time on … well, immigration enforcement.

Specifically, David Price of North Carolina, the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, complained in a speech yesterday that ICE has been deporting too many illegal immigrants arrested during worksite enforcement raids.

In a related story, Chris Strohm of Congress Daily notes that critics of ICE complain that worksite enforcement operations “ensnarl migrant workers who are not threatening and cause major disruptions to families.” This can be a frustrating critique for the agents at ICE, who were previously criticized for not doing enough worksite enforcement and instead prioritizing national security operations. The argument at that time was that if ICE did not crack down on jobs – the magnet that attracts illegal aliens- then we would never get our borders under control.

ICE’s strategy, considering its very limited resources allocated to finding and apprehending the some 10 million illegal immigrants already in the country, was to focus on those worksites known to hire undocumented workers and also on sensitive security environments, such as airports and critical infrastructure.

After taking a consistent beating on Capitol Hill for limiting its worksite enforcement operations to national security sites, however, ICE began to increase its operations among non-sensitive sites – an action for which they were promptly criticized.

For example, after a major national operation that resulted in the arrests of more than 300 illegal workers at Wal-Mart stores, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called ICE agents terrorists.

And now Chairman Price implies – well, flat out says – that ICE is wasting time and money by cracking down on worksites that hire illegal immigrants: “In other words, while we have been using scarce resources to detain and deport laborers at meatpacking plants, we have allowed tens of thousands of dangerous criminal aliens to be released back into our communities after serving their sentences, with no awareness on our part of their immigration status,” he said.

And, worse, he has tied ICE’s hands on how it can go about its duties. (One can never tire of pointing out that these duties were mandated by the very Congress which is now criticizing ICE for carrying them.). Price confirmed that his committee is requiring ICE to spend at least $800 million on identifying and deporting illegal immigrants in local jails.

First, to hear Price talk, you’d think identifying and deporting illegal immigrants at jails was a novel idea. It has always been, and remains, a significant part of ICE’s overall strategic plan. In 2006, ICE identified 57,000 criminal aliens in prisons and jails. That number more than doubled in 2007 to 164,000, and it is expected to increase to more than 200,000 this year.

So I’m not criticizing Price for his support of this tactic; it’s a solid tactic that has been used successfully by ICE for years. And, yes, dedicating more resources to deport convicted aliens would be a good thing.

However, in earmarking (a favorite activity of members of Congress) some $800 million to be used on this tactic – and then not providing the appropriations to do so (another favorite activity) – is typical of a Congress that puts political posturing ahead of serious solutions. It is reminiscent of Congressional budgets that threw money at the highly visible Border Patrol – the armed officers who apprehend aliens at the border – but then provided no additional funding for the less sexy Office of Detention and Removal in ICE which is responsible for housing and deporting this influx of apprehended aliens. And who do you think criticized ICE for its “catch and release” habits when there was no room to house the aliens and no money from Congress to increase bed spaces?

ICE doesn’t need its hands tied by micromanaging politicians who are playing to the media rather than trying to get the job done. Yes, deporting aliens from local jails is important. But depending upon the unpredictable and utterly inconsistent mood of Congress, it is only more or less important at any given time than a multitude of other tactics that form the overall strategy for securing the borders.

Kudos to Ranking Member Hal Rogers of Kentucky for standing up to his committee’s desire to play armchair sheriff. Rogers noted that such restrictions on how ICE executes its operations could wreak havoc on other important programs.

Known as 287g, legislation already exists that would allow local law enforcement to conduct minor immigration enforcement actions, such as apprehending individuals discovered to be in the country illegally during routine activities like traffic violation stops. That, however, would require some legitimate political leadership, given that recruiting local law enforcement is opposed by most local governments that are already burdened with heavy caseloads of their own. And yet, without such a solution, the only alternative would be to increase funding for ICE interior operations to a level that is unlikely – one that would give ICE sufficient resources to go after the 10 million or so illegal immigrants in the country.

Don’t hold your breath, though. It’s far easier to pass unfunded mandates. Then you can pound your gavel and complain that the immigration mess is everybody else’s fault.

Posted in Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Immigration & Visa Policy, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration | Comments

Carafano to testify on risk management before Homeland Security Committee

Monday, June 23rd, 2008

Security Debrief Contributor Dr. James Carafano will testify before the House Homeland Security Committee on the topic of ensuring a national risk management framework for homeland security. See below for full details.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 @ 2pm

311 Cannon House Office Building

Hearing: “The Goodyear Explosion: Ensuring Our Nation is Secure by Developing a Risk Management Framework for Homeland Security”

· Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection

Witnesses:

Robert D. Jamison, Under Secretary National Protection & Programs, DHS

Norman J. Rabkin, Managing Director for Homeland Security and Justice, GAO

James Jay Carafano, Assistant Director, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior Research Fellow, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Heritage Foundation

Raymond McInnis, former employee of the Goodyear Plant in Houston and widower of Gloria McInnis, who was killed at the plant on June 11

John S. Morawetz, Director, International Chemical Workers Union Center for Worker Health and Safety Education

John P. Paczkowski, Director, Emergency Management and Security, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

There will be a webcast of this hearing.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Emergency Preparedness & Response | Comments

Verification Hub a smart move for DHS REAL ID Grants

Friday, June 20th, 2008

The DHS announcement today awarding REAL ID grants is a positive step in meeting the recommendation of the 9-11 Commission to make identification documents more secure.

With the adoption of a “verification hub” approach, where states work with other states to verify identities, DHS is letting the folks who issue driver licenses control their own processes – previously a source of irritation for many Governors. Having a secure and safe identification document will help reduce ID theft, identity fraud and the risk of having bad people move from state-to-state in order to exploit gaps in identity verification systems. These grants are a move in the right direction.

State Governors may quibble over whether they got “enough” money to do what they want to do, or whether the right states were picked to serve as the test and evaluation sites, but they should not debate the intent of DHS to work with them to find a solution.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see how the National Governor’s Association reacts.

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

Worrisome Signs in Advance of the Political Conventions

Friday, June 20th, 2008

The Rocky Mountain News has reported that the Denver Police has allocated half its budget for crowd control at the Democratic National Convention to equipment, the other half to pay. The ACLU is suing in order to achieve visibility of how the money is being spent, which is being fought on the grounds that it may compromise tactics and security. The purchase of 88 pepper-ball guns offers some insight about the mentality and underlying concepts that are likely to be applied – assuming that the equipment and tactics have been harmonised.

The pepper-ball guns are a stand-off weapon, intended to neutralise the crowd. I say intended because as a weapon they are not taken seriously by professional rioters. The pepper ball is not painful enough, and the irritant is easily defeated with a shemargh across the nose and mouth and swimming or biking goggles over the eyes – both standard equipment for determined rioters since the late 1970s.

The article by Sara Burnett makes no mention of budget allocated to training. Surely this cannot be right; the Denver Police Department has relatively little riot experience, and must have brought in outside expertise. Denver PD have certainly consulted with the “wise men,” a group of senior American law enforcement with significant experience in domestic public order matters.

Why is the matter of training so important? One of the primary issues, relative to public perception, is that the rioters will seek to create public relations traps to exploit the Denver PD’s lack of experience. In such an unusual and high stress situation, with the television cameras and YouTube-ready camera phones ubiquitous, the rioters will try to create public theater to manufacture sympathy by creating conditions (bizarrely) where lethal weapons will be used. The end result, as professional rioters and protestors well know, will be to condemn the police use of force as massively over-matching the threat.

For instance, will the Denver PD stand fast against Molotov cocktails, or will they use lethal response? The answer for many in the United States is that lethal fire should be the response. However, an equal number believe that it is not. In such a situation, controversy is guaranteed, no matter who is in the right. And the protestors, therefore, win the publicity battle.

Policing exists to support and protect the community; the word ‘serve’ exists in many sheriff and police departments mottos. Law enforcement is about doing what must be done, not what can be done; the rubber may very much meet the road in both Denver and Minneapolis on this issue if determined rioting takes place.

Responsible and effective public order activities will be evidenced by the proactive policing of order, rather than the reactive policing of disorder. What is increasingly looking like the inability on the part of Denver to engage with the protestors and include them in the planning process rather than alienating them does not bode well for proactive policing of order.

The ordering of pepper-ball guns by Denver worries me greatly; it suggests that more attention is being paid to shiny toys than in-depth training of the police experienced proefessionals in the tactics that will enable them to stand firm, to move forward and, in a decisive and discriminating manner, conduct operations that are proportionate, appropriate and effective.

Equally important to this effort, and an area often ignored by many law enforcement organizations until it is too late, is the need to manage press coverage. Any successful public order strategy must include tactics to counteract theater-antics of the rioters and to ensure that the media understand that the rioters are criminals rather than legitimate protestors. The legitimate protestors will be the ones making a point, enacting their legitimate rights to free speech, not intentionally provoking a fight with the police or trying to destroy property.

There is still time for Denver to make clear that everything is under control and that by the time the Convention assembles they will have a world-class public order capability; at the moment that is not the message they are projecting. Dangerously, that only increases the attraction of Denver as a scene to riot.

Tags: Democratic National Convention, Law Enforcement, presidential campaign
Posted in Civil liberties & Privacy, Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Law Enforcement, Private and Physical Security, Radicalization | Comments

TSA’s Badging Mistake

Thursday, June 19th, 2008

Officials at the Transportation Security Administration just can’t help themselves. TSA is beginning to equip its 48,000 screeners with a 3-inch-by-2-inch, silver-colored badges that will be worn on new royal-blue police-like uniforms. Upset by the lack of respect some of their screeners are receiving, TSA has made the flawed judgment that a badge will solve the problem.

The badge issue is not new. During my tenure (2002 – 2005) at TSA, the agency floated that idea of providing badges to the screener workforce several times. These occurrences took place mostly during the early days of TSA when the agency was still searching for its identity and believed it was created to be a law enforcement agency. Cooler heads prevailed during those days, but that clearly didn’t stop select bureaucrats at the agency from pushing their agenda.

Let’s be clear – TSA screeners are not law enforcement officers. They are not certified inspectors. They do not require access to crime scenes and they are not equipped or trained to respond to law enforcement incidents. They only special access they require is to certain areas of airports – for which their TSA badge and credential provides them access.

This decision has angered law enforcement authorities at airports as well. They are concerned (and rightly so) that the traveling public will confuse screeners equipped with a badge with legitimate law enforcement officers. They are also concerned about the possible misuse of badges by a less trained and lower-paid workforce.

The agency believes that badges will improve the morale of its workforce and at the same time convey a sense of professionalism. If these issues are truly areas of concern for TSA leadership, they should first consider higher pay and additional training for their screeners.

Tags: airport security, baggage screeners, TSA
Posted in Aviation and airport security, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration | Comments

Barack Obama’s Muslim Problem

Wednesday, June 18th, 2008

No, I’m not talking about the absurd emails that are circulating suggesting that Obama is a Muslim. (So what if he were?) Instead, I’m talking about Obama’s own negative politicking on something too sensitive to be treated as standard campaign demagoguery.

Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama are slugging it out in the press today over who has the better vision for protecting the nation from terrorism. The point of contention, at least in today’s dispute, is whether the Supreme Court was in the right to declare habeas corpus rights for terrorists. John McCain asserts that terrorists are not criminals, American citizens accused of breaking the law, but are enemy combatants engaged in warfare against the United States. Thus, habeas corpus does not apply. Obama suggests that terrorists are indeed criminals and deserve the standard protections of liberty and due process that any accused citizen (or alien on American soil) deserves until proven guilty.

Here’s where Obama stepped in it though: He claimed that by holding terrorists at Guantanamo, the United States gives a “huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.’ ”

How the United States treats Muslims? The United States treats Muslims the same way it treats Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, and every other faith.

Now, terrorists? Yes, we do treat them differently – regardless of whether they are Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or whatever.

It is reckless and shameful for a candidate who wants to lead this nation, and presumably defend it from future terrorists attacks, to promote the notion that America targets Muslims – a people of a particular faith – by stripping them of their rights and throwing them into prison.

That is not my country, and it is certainly not the country Obama wants to lead.

Obama and his campaign supporters may claim that he is not making that assertion but that he is merely pointing out that others will make it. That’s kind of like the Clinton campaign claiming they never said Obama had to answer for his youthful drug use but were merely pointing out that Republicans would raise the issue.

There are legitimate arguments to be made, on both sides, over the controversial matter of Guantanamo Bay. However, giving any legitimacy whatsoever to the notion that America is treating Muslims this way is beyond the pale. As Muslims will tell you: Those individuals who would kill the innocent aren’t Muslims; they are terrorists.

Tags: 2008 elections, foreign policy, Islam
Posted in Civil liberties & Privacy, Congress, Politics & PR, Ideology & Public Diplomacy | Comments

Congress, heal thyself

Wednesday, June 18th, 2008

EDITOR’S NOTE: This piece originally ran in The Hill newspaper and is being republished here with permission.

When George Washington announced in 1783 that he was voluntarily giving up his reins of power and retiring as commander in chief of the Continental Army, an incredulous King George of Great Britain remarked, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

King George understood that relinquishing power was — and is — a rare event. If members of Congress would follow Washington’s example more often, they might be held in higher esteem. And there is no better place to start than in adopting the only one of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations yet to be addressed: Congress should create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security instead of the multiple committees that currently exist.

When Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff met with a group of bloggers earlier this year, he was asked about impact of Congress’s conspicuous failure to streamline its oversight functions:

“Our department reports to 86 congressional committees. Over the last year my colleagues and I have been called to testify 224 times; that averages to about four times a week. Since the department’s creation, DHS officials have testified 761 times, provided roughly 7,800 written reports and answered more than 13,000 questions for the record.”

Proper oversight is necessary to ensure both accountability and the public trust. What Secretary Chertoff described, however, is not oversight — it is overkill. This overkill affects more than the overworked staff at DHS, who find themselves scrambling to meet the conflicting demands of 86 different masters. It affects an entire industry that is still trying to get its sea legs under it — and an American public that must navigate the attendant confusion.

Who’s got final jurisdiction for addressing the many names wrongly flagged on the government’s watch list?

Sure, the Transportation Security Administration. But when you need congressional intervention, where do you go? When the disastrous economic effects of the politically popular but security-weak mandate for scanning 100 percent of all cargo starts to be felt, where does the public go for redress?

Remember the pledge to end pork-barrel spending? With 86 different committee chairmen all looking to get a piece of the DHS grant pie, everybody is grabbing and nobody is accountable.

Lobbyists are favorite punching bags in this political climate. Every week, Congress proposes legislation that has significant repercussions for American citizens from all walks of life — from union members to business owners; from immigrants to Native Americans — who want to travel safely and efficiently. Lobbyists give voice to these individuals, but even these “insider pros” don’t have the omniscience or physical stamina to run the gauntlet that Congress has created for the homeland security industry.

Maybe that’s why so many bad bills keep getting passed and then repealed — the normal vetting process has been eviscerated as industry reps and citizen advocates spend unnecessary time navigating the maze of congressional committees, with their competing jurisdictions. This serves to divert attention from the merits of the legislation.

This congressional morass needs to be corrected. Will anybody on Capitol Hill follow the lead of George Washington and voluntarily relinquish power for the better good of government?

Probably not, so we the citizens need to take action. Here’s how:

First, in the midst of a campaign season, voters ought to be asking whether having 86 committees with DHS oversight jurisdiction is in their best interests (or whether it is merely a means of maintaining power and fundraising connections).

Second, private-sector companies, unions and trade associations that all have a stake in homeland security issues should make their concerns known when members of Congress come calling. If the mission of a good government-relations person includes speaking “truth to power,” then now is the time to deliver the message.

Third, all of the interested parties should demand that Congress start the debate for changing the committee structure now, as Congress readies to take up the individual bills that will eventually comprise the Homeland Security Department reauthorization legislation. When the 110th Congress comes in next January, the transition plan should be well-understood on all sides. This will also help the next president in getting early confirmation of a DHS secretary and lessening the potential terrorist threat that security experts say will arise if there is a leadership vacuum.

Finally, Secretary Chertoff has it right:

“Our country needs to have an honest discussion about the trade-offs involved in homeland security … When you have 80 or so other committees, each of which has a narrow slice of jurisdiction that also seeks to have input into how we prioritize and how we make trade-offs, then you have a recipe for conflicting direction and constant fighting about who controls jurisdiction over what part of [DHS].”

It is time for Congress to set the right priorities. It can start by finishing the work of the 9/11 Commission.

David Olive is the moderator of the Washington Homeland Security Roundtable Inc. , a nonprofit organization composed of private-sector companies involved in the homeland security marketplace, and is a principal with Olive, Edwards & Cooper , a government relations and public affairs firm.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR | Comments

Government Must Prove That Crime Pays

Tuesday, June 17th, 2008

Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings this month (June 2008) on the application and definition of federal money laundering statutes are problematic for federal investigators and prosecutors. The Cuellar v. United States case, a 9-0 decision, was a “no brainer” and addressed the act of concealment to avoid detection. I discussed this decision in my blog of last week.

The second case, Santos v. United States, a 5-4 decision, is more complicated and will prove to be even more frustrating in government efforts to utilize the provisions of the 1986 Money Laundering Control Act to crack down on criminal activity.

The case began with Efrain Santos, who operated an illegal lottery in bars and restaurants in northwestern Indiana from the 1970s until 1994. Santos was arrested and convicted of running an illegal gambling enterprise and money laundering. At issue in the case was a section of the Act defining money laundering as a financial transaction that represents the “proceeds” of some form of unlawful activity. Santos was charged with money laundering based on the payments he made to his runners, collectors and winners. Santos contested the money laundering conviction on the grounds that these payments were made from his receipts, not his profits, so he could not be prosecuted for money laundering. The question posed to the court was whether “proceeds” referred to total receipts of the criminal activity or only the net profits. The Seventh Circuit in Chicago agreed with Santos and overturned the conviction.

By the 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court affirmed that decision. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion and stated that “proceeds” can be interpreted as receipts or profits, but since Congress did not specify what it meant, the statute was ambiguos and needed to be interpreted in the favor of the defendant.

Justice Samuel Alito objected by indicating that defining “proceeds” as profits introduces pointless and difficult problems of proof. Alito, a former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, further stated that this limited definition of “proceeds” was contrary to Congress’s intent to prevent criminal enterprises from benefitting from the fruits of their illegal activity, regardless of the prosecutor’s ability to prove the criminal activity earned a profit.

The government’s arguments before the Court were right on point and highlighted the problem of distinguishing profits from gross receipts in a criminal enterprise. A criminal organization’s accounting records are hard to obtain, often difficult to interpret and require auditing to authenticate. Criminal organizations go to great lengths to conceal their criminal activities, particularly their financial transactions from scrutiny, tracking and seizure. The government at this point has the difficult task of not only investigating a criminal organization’s money laundering activities but documenting the organization’s profitability.

The last time I checked, profit is what drove these organizations.

Similar to the Cuellar v. U.S. decision, it is anticipated that Congress will address the current deficiency in the 1986 Money Laundering Control Act by legislating the definition of proceeds to include total receipts of criminal activity.

Tags: terrorist financing
Posted in Terror Finance | Comments

IST – Inherently Stupider Technologies?

Monday, June 16th, 2008

By L. Vance Taylor, Guest Contributor

You’ve got to give it up for the masters of wordplay, you know, the guys who take offensive or politically charged phrases and weave them into neutral or even positive terms. Like the guy who took ‘global warming’ and gave us ‘climate change.’ To you good sir, I say “Bravo! You are a true word wizard.”

Or what about the person responsible for making the garbage man into a ‘sanitary engineer?’ Kudos to you, whoever you are!

While I’m typically a fan of such creativity, I’m finding myself a little miffed with whoever coined the term ‘Inherently Safer Technology’ (IST). Sure it sounds good -who doesn’t want to replace hazardous substances with something that works just as well AND is ‘inherently’ safer? But, is IST all it’s cracked up to be or is it just another example of a Washington snow job?

Whatever you do, don’t ask Congress for the answer because apparently majority members on both the House Homeland Security and the House Energy and Commerce Committees have decided to decide before hearing all the facts…

Section 550 of the 2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act authorized DHS to issue a rule known as the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS). Under the rule, DHS is making chemical facilities conduct vulnerability assessments and implement Site Security Plans. The basic idea behind CFATS is for DHS to work with chemical facilities to ensure they are incorporating the appropriate security measures needed to safeguard their onsite chemicals of interest. As it exists today, CFATS focuses on reducing risk by enhancing physical security. CFATS does NOT provide DHS with authority to force facilities to adopt IST. In other words, the Department isn’t as interested in the chemicals you use as they are in the steps you’re taking to physically protect them.

Last Thursday (June 12, 2008), DHS and EPA officials testified before Congress that CFATS, which sunsets in October 2009, should be made permanent and expanded to incorporate water utilities. While I can easily argue that the water sector should maintain its exemption to the rule, I’ll spare you (for now). According to the June 12^th testimony of the EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin Grumbles, the chemical of greatest concern to the Agency is chlorine. Suffice to say that the water sector, (which is actually required by EPA to use chlorine) has already been proactive in protecting itself, its customers and the communities in which they reside and completed vulnerability assessments and voluntarily spent millions of dollars incorporating security measures to protect onsite chemicals. Nonetheless, for liberal groups like the Center for American Progress (CAP), that isn’t enough. According to CAP and its Senior Fellow P.J. Crowley, Congress needs to provide DHS with authority to mandate that water facilities adopt so-called ISTs.

What really drives me nuts is that for guys like Crowley (whom I personally like and respect), ‘progress’ is never enough, and there’s no such thing as compromise. Forget that due to local environmental circumstances the adoption of ISTs could lead to serious health problems for certain communities; forget that utilities like the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California literally employ their own police force, use biometrics, and have their facilities so locked down that Jack Bauer himself couldn’t rob it. Apparently, that’s not enough progress. For CAP, the company line seems to be that it’s IST or the high way.

Well P.J., allow me to drop some knowledge on you: Choosing disinfection processes isn’t exactly a Coke vs. Pepsi type of decision. Some utilities couldn’t adopt IST even if they wanted to because of things such as physical space limitations, economic implications, footprint issues, or preexisting local regulatory requirements precluding them from doing so. Believe it or not, the best people to judge risk reduction options at local water utilities (which you should know differ greatly from one city to another) aren’t Washington bureaucrats or Members of Congress, it’s the experts who reside within those communities. Do we really want Congress playing ‘chemistry mix and match’ when they can’t pass a budget or anything else in a timely manner?

It’s ironic that in response to the incorporation of gaseous chlorine in terrorist attacks in Iraq, officials decided to ‘reduce the risk’ by holding up chlorine at the border only to discover that doing so led to major cholera outbreaks. All told, only two deaths have been directly attributed to the use of chlorine gas in Iraq while the death toll caused by the cholera outbreaks continues to rise.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying IST is bad and gaseous chlorine is good. All I’m saying is that switching one out for the other isn’t always possible, advisable, or ‘inherently’ safer. Local utilities need to evaluate their disinfection options, weigh the risks of adopting alternatives, and choose accordingly. If the feds want to ensure utilities are properly securing their chemicals by bringing them into the CFATS regime, fine – the water sector has never shied away from security or shirked its responsibility to protect public health. In fact, this industry has led the way multiple times. But stripping local choice in favor of letting big government tinker with how my water supply gets treated – that just sounds inherently stupid.

L. Vance Taylor is a principal with Olive, Edwards, & Cooper who has worked to advance the mission of homeland security on Capitol Hill and in the private sector. One of only approximately 250 people in the nation with a Master’s degree in Homeland Security, Mr. Taylor combines specialized educational training with real-world experience to leverage successful outcomes for clients and stakeholders. Read his full biography here.

Tags: critical infrasturcture
Posted in Emergency Preparedness & Response | Comments

NYC Adopts Widespread Use of Tasers

Sunday, June 15th, 2008

The decision to equip police sergeants in New York with Tasers is a sound one. The squeals of alarm in some quarters will be deafening, but these protests will demonstrate both misunderstanding and the power of emotive words. The deploymenty of Taser offers the opportunity for the NYPD to respond swiftly and effectively in a manner less lethal than the use of firearms alone. It must be remembered that Taser weapons reduce – if not completely eliminate – the risk of fatality.

The great fallacy is that Taser should either be a magic pill, something that works all the time, or not be used because it is too dangerous. Rubbish. Taser is an effective tool, provided that its implementation is correctly managed. No piece of equipment can solve all the ills of policing. A Taser, a new pistol, a new information technology system optimizing response times or a weapon for seeing inside buildings as part of hostage scenarios, is going to solve the perceived ills of policing.

Where the rubber meets the road is the police officer who must make decisions and apply their judgment and training in order to successfully resolve a situation. The implementation of Taser weapons is such an example; the sergeants must be correctly trained in its use, in the risk factors associated with it, and the use of the system as both a deterrent and a weapon. Assuming that such implementation takes place, then the much more contentious question of the conditions under which Taser should be used arises.

The weapon system disables. It replaces the use of lethal force, and is most reasonably deployed in situations where a suspect is armed with a bladed weapon, such as a knife or samurai sword, or there is a clear risk to officers from engaging with a suspect, such as when the suspect has taken a drug cocktail or similar, and is both enraged and very difficult to subdue; in both situations, the alternative – lethal force in the former, a mass of officers having to engage with the suspect physically in a melee where the precise use of force becomes difficult and accidents can happen in the latter – is not attractive. Of course, there is a moral hazard question, in the knowledge that the suspect, once tasered, will survive, which may encourage some to be freer with its use. If a risk, this will be contained by robust training and accountability measures.

I have little patience for the malicious law suits and complainers, “I shouldn’t have been Tasered, it compromises my human rights,” and yet, when questioned, it turns out that the plaintiff had a knife, was high on drugs, and posed a threat to both the police and community. To be blunt: tough. In the old days, you would have been shot, and died. Stop complaining; if you don’t want to be Tasered, put down the knife. It is not complicated.

Regrettably, there are incidents where suspects die from the application of Taser. I do believe these instances are to be regretted, and the response must be robust; this response should be partly effect-based (without Taser lethal force would have been used), partly investigative (what medical conditions led to the use) and partly procedural (what events led up to the use). Robust investigation will answer many concerns, but the sergeants’ training must be effective enough to equip them with the decision-making processes to weather an investigation successfully.

An understanding of the risk factors gives those using the equipment the opportunity to make a judgement call. The bottom line, ignoring publicity and lawsuits and razzmatazz is that there is a small risk that if you get shot with a Taser you might die. Therefore, law enforcement must be judicial in its use – hence the need for training. Suspects need to take seriously the warning from a member of law enforcement, “If you do not comply, you will be Tasered.” At the same time, the public need to be educated on the realities of the weapon system, and its implementation is to reduce the risk of fatalities, but that the risk is not removed completely.

I do not advocate a police state, but I do advocate common sense. When an officer is pointing a Taser at you and threatening to engage, that is not the time to debate the relative merits of the human rights implications of a electrical device as a law enforcement tool.

Under an effective roll-out including a robust training cycle – which one assumes will occur - the wider dispersal of Taser is a great thing for the citizens of New York. It will reduce the risk of fatalities in the NYPD’s response to incidents, increase the ability of the NYPD to respond to incidents effectively, and create a very real deterrent. I applaud the decision of the NYPD to increase their range of responses in the Use of Force spectrum.

Tags: Law Enforcement
Posted in Featured Feed | Comments

Congressional Mental Instability Regarding Immigration, Exhibit 743: Senator Robert Menendez

Friday, June 13th, 2008

The ongoing bipolar inconsistency of the U.S. Congress — that institution responsible for drafting our laws on immigration, among other things — was once again on display this past week. Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey kicked it off with a harangue in which he accused federal immigration agents of everything from racism to general rudeness. Why? For enforcing the laws that Congress passed.

How tiring it gets to listen to such self-righteous and hypocritical grandstanding. Yes, there is a need for a serious debate about this nation’s immigration laws. There’s an even greater need for debate about why our elected representatives — such as Sen. Menendez — are so ineffective and unable to address the issue of comprehensive immigration reform.

Perhaps the attacks on DHS and ICE are efforts to distract from the abysmal record of the Congress. Perhaps Sen. Menendez is simply unaware that it is his organization, not DHS, that makes our immigration laws. No doubt the good senator will be out attacking DHS for not securing our borders soon enough, though, so one suspects he knows perfectly well what he is doing. (Menendez is one of the senators clamoring for 100 percent cargo scanning, an ineffective security model that will end up as a debacle, and no doubt he will be one of the first to condemn DHS for trying to enforce 100 percent scanning once it disastrous effects become clear.)

NorthJersey.com: providing local news, sports and classifieds for Northern New Jersey!

Sen. Robert Menendez on Thursday said the top officials responsible for immigration enforcement proved to be “in denial” about constitutional violations by federal agents in a meeting he had with them.

A day after the New Jersey Democrat took to the Senate floor to assail immigration agents as overzealous, Menendez said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Julie Myers, the head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, reacted dismissively when he raised his concerns during a May meeting.

On Wednesday, before his Senate colleagues, Menendez condemned immigration raids — arguing that they’ve ensnared legal immigrants and U.S. citizens — and accused immigration agents of racial and ethnic profiling. He accused agents of trampling on the rights of immigrants who speak Spanish or have dark skin.

Tags: Border Security, DHS, ICE, Immigration & Visa Policy
Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Congress, Politics & PR, Immigration & Visa Policy | Comments

Weighing in on Immigrant Detainee Healthcare Controversy

Friday, June 13th, 2008

Much has been written and discussed in the past few weeks regarding the medical care of detainees held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. I don’t know how to avoid coming off as an insensitive, cold and heartless human being in coming to the defense of ICE and the management of its detainee health care program but I’ll give it a try.

I would be the first to agree that the ICE health care program is less than perfect. I don’t think there is even a debate on that point. The current system has come a long way in twenty years but still needs improvement. ICE should elicit the help of the medical community and accreditation bodies so they can continue to provide an appropriate level of health care to those they detain. I have no doubt that they will consult with these entities because contrary to what has been said, the professional staff managing these programs do care about delivering a level of service that is second to none in this industry.

What I find ludicrous is the notion that you should introduce legislation to create federal standards for detainee medical care and provisions to continue their health care after they are removed from the United States. Why should the U.S. taxpayer be responsible for the medical care of any person placed in removal proceedings?

My family and I don’t receive free medical care from the U.S. government; I have to pay for it. I think a lot of others would agree with this premise.

Let me be perfectly clear, I’m not advocating for treating people inhumanely. ICE certainly has a responsibility to provide safe and humane environment for those they detain. Having a detainee pay for their continued medical care while in custody is not a new idea. Today, right here in the U.S., there are county and local detention facilities that do just that.

If there is going to be a standard level of health care for immigration detainees it should be the same standard that applies to you and I, not a higher one.

Tags: Immigration & Visa Policy
Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Congress, Politics & PR, Immigration & Visa Policy, Management & Administration | Comments

Money Laundering Re-Defined

Thursday, June 12th, 2008

The rulings of the Supreme Court last week on two money laundering cases will directly impact the federal government’s ability to utilize a very powerful prosecutorial tool, with conviction carrying a prison sentence of up to 20 years.

The first case, Cuellar v. United States, seemed like a “no-brainer” as the Court ruled 9-0 that simple concealment of cash is not money laundering.

In this case, Humberto Cuellar was convicted in October 2004 and sentenced to 6 1/2 years in federal prison for money laundering. Cuellar was intercepted while traveling in southern Texas toward the Mexican border.
Officers found $81,000. in cash in a secret compartment under the floorboard of his vehicle. The currency was bundled in plastic bags and duct tape, and animal hair was spread in the hidden compartment to hamper
K-9 detection. Cuellar could not explain where he was going or from where he got the money.

The Court ruled that simple concealment was not enough to convict someone for money laundering. Writing for the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas stated that Cuellar’s conviction required that he knew that the purpose, not merely the effect, of his transporting money was to conceal or disguise its illicit nature. Although the evidence did show the intent to avoid detection while driving the funds to Mexico, it did not show that the defendant intended to create the appearance of “legitimate wealth”.

The Court ruled that prosecutors must demonstrate that the purpose of “transporting” in a money laundering case is to conceal ownership, sources and control. Justice Thomas wrote in his opinion, “How one moves the money is distinct from why one moves the money”.

Chief Justice John Roberts added, “When I use a suitcase I’m using it to carry my clothes, not conceal them”. Judge Thomas indicated that the literal interpretation of the law would apply to someone who “hid illicit funds enroute to turn them over to law enforcement”. If merely hiding money while taking it out of the U.S. violated federal money laundering laws, then even the simple act of hiding money on one’s person before heading to Mexico “for a night on the town” would be money laundering.

The 1986 Money Laundering Control Act has been interpreted broadly and used to gain nearly 1000 convictions in 2006. It is conservatively estimated that over $8 billion a year from Mexican and Colombian drugs is transported across the border and laundered according to the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center.

It is anticipated that Congress will rewrite the law to address the type of conduct Cuellar was arrested for because transporting drug money from the U.S. to Mexico is an every day occurence.

My next blog will address the Santos v. United States case, a 5-4 Supreme Court decision addressing “proceeds”, which will be a more complicated issue to address for federal agents and prosecutors.

Tags: money laundering
Posted in Terror Finance | Comments

This is how it’s done…

Wednesday, June 11th, 2008

There’s been a lot of talk lately from a lot of different voices about ‘resiliency.’ We’ve had a month’s worth of Congressional hearings on the subject that put real substance over the usual finger-pointing we so often see displayed. Thanks in large part to House Homeland Chairman Thompson, the Committee Members, the excellent witnesses and most certainly the Staffers who made it all happen, we have a much better understanding of what resilience means to many different constituencies.

In addition to the hearings, we’ve had Secretary Chertoff, FEMA Administrator Paulison and others from DHS in the weeks leading up to the opening of Hurricane Season 2008 go to great lengths to describe the need for communities and in particular, individual citizens to make themselves ready for any number of disasters. Both of these gentlemen have specifically stated that the individual is “the cornerstone of preparedness.”

All of these efforts are evidence that we are all becoming more versed and open about the roles, responsibilities and capabilities necessary to succeed, and even more importantly, to survive in today’s world.

As our ‘conditioning’ in this increasingly challenging environment progresses, it is important to be mindful of what ‘resilience’ really is, and what it is not. Given our propensity (particularly in Washington) to latch on to the next new thing (particularly new words and hip greetings (e.g chest bumps, fist-bumps, etc.)), there is every reason to believe that the word ‘resiliency’ is in mortal danger of becoming the all-encompassing ‘buzzword.’ As such it will become a mandatory fixture for inclusion in speeches, PowerPoint charts and talking points by those who know what it is but mostly by those who do not but want to look smart, savvy and well-informed any way. While the word has definite meaning, we all too often miss real life examples of the word in action until the moment has passed us by.

If you are looking for real-life resiliency happening today, pay close attention to what is happening right now in the heartland of America. Over the past several days, the citizens of Cedar Falls, Iowa, have filled hundreds of thousands of sandbags to save their City from the rising waters of the Cedar River. Thousands of volunteers of every age and walk of life have stepped forward to fill bag after bag and put them in place to save their ‘homeland’ and preserve the ‘security’ that it brings to them.

In the words of one volunteer, “If this breaks, the whole downtown will be flooded…. Everything goes on down here. It would be a big hit to the community.”

Despite their tremendous efforts (and the coordinated emergency plans put into place by State and local officials), there is no guarantee the floodwaters will stay out of their community. More rainfall is predicted for tonight and the coming days. While Mother Nature is neither patient nor forgiving to communities in times like these, Cedar Falls and others like her in the Midwest that are fighting the ‘battle’ for survival represent the personification of resilience. They are offering us all a teachable moment and we all have a lot to learn. As we watch this lesson unfold (and hopefully help them overcome their current threats along the way), we should all be asking ourselves, “Are we ready to do the same things for our community, our families and ourselves?”

While pondering that question, let’s put the following facts on the table. There was no legislative mandate that made the citizens of Cedar Falls step forward to fill sandbags and stack them atop one another. Nor were there FEMA checks handed out to make them come downtown to save the City streets from more ruin. They just showed up and did it. They were business owners, employees, parents, students, etc. – all citizens committed to the survival of what is important to them. That is what resilience is: action that enables survival. Before we allow the word to become so overused that it loses its meaning (e.g. interoperability), we need to remember that people focused on a mission are at the center of resilience.

The example of Cedar Rapids and other Midwest towns fighting floodwaters from taking what they have left is not unique. We’ve seen it in the West during large wild-fire outbreaks. We’ve seen it in coastal communities that have been struck by hurricanes. We saw it on the evening of September 11th when construction workers and others showed up in lower Manhattan to start the grim recovery work.

All of these examples and more are emblematic of a spirit we saw heroically manifested on United Flight 93. Average citizens with no prior connection to one another other than a common purchase of an ill-fated plane ticket, came together and stopped further carnage so others could survive. [Steven Flynn’s recent article in Foreign Affairs did an exceptional job chronicling this condition and if you’ve not read it yet, do so.]

As we move the word ‘resilience’ forward in our policies, programs, plans and daily lives, we would bode well to remember that at the heart of resilience are people willing to sacrifice for survival. There are no steps, flowcharts or buzzwords that can adequately capture that fact but the people in Cedar Falls and throughout the flood ravaged Midwest are giving us a real time lesson in how it’s done. They are fighting for their ‘homeland’ and we should all be prepared to do the same when the time comes.

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

World Customs Organization Study Reveals International Skepticism Toward 100% Scanning

Wednesday, June 11th, 2008

Global resistance is growing to a looming Congressional mandate that will require the scanning of all containers entering U.S. ports by 2012.

The World Customs Organization (WCO) released a new report on Tuesday analyzing the 9/11 Bill’s requirement for 100% cargo scanning – a measure that Le Havre University researchers found will have significant “technical and organizational difficulties.”

The report was most concerned about the high number of unknowns that could impede the implementation of a 100% scanning process at over 600 international ports. Despite evidence suggesting that the necessary scanning technology could be in place by 2012, there is a long – and frankly, rather concerning – list of other key factors that no one has been able to quantify: the cost of infrastructure and equipment needed to support the technology, the expense of hiring and training staff to use the technology, and the ability to monitor, interpret and asses every image produced by the technology in a timely manner, are only a few of these “problematic” areas the study identifies.

The announcement by the WCO’s Secretary General Michel Danat that accompanied the study’s release also emphasized that his organization has made every effort since 9/11 to strengthen trade security and work with the United States to implement effective risk management processes. In contrast with the type of comprehensive and multi-layered intelligence process that a vast majority of foreign ports have relied on, a system that mandates 100% cargo scanning (a component of the 9/11 Bill that was never recommended by the 9/11 Commission) might do little to actually improve security and is much more likely to have a significant and harmful effect on the international supply chain.

The report suggests that unless the shipping cost per container is significantly lowered from early estimates, foreign manufacturers might simply avoid exporting to the United States altogether and rely more heavily on ports operated by our neighbors to the north and south.

Members of Congress would be advised to should address the concerns included in this report, which is only one of several early signs of resistance to a 100% scanning regime from the United States’ global trade partners. Nearly every piece of evidence and practical experience has corroborated what the 9/11 Commission actually suggested in its final report: security at our nation’s ports should be undertaken through a risk-based approached – not through a system that assesses threats indiscriminately and has the potential to hurt an already-suffering global economy.

Tags: port security
Posted in Maritime & Seaport Security, Supply Chain Security | Comments

Observations on the DHS S&T Conference

Monday, June 9th, 2008

Last week the Science and Technology Directorate held another session in its series of Stakeholders’ Conference here in Washington DC. The attendance appeared to be down from last year’s event, although there was a lot of “meat” to digest by those who attended the conference. One of the most significant things to come out of the conference is the new S&T High Priority Technology Needs booklet.

Almost from the beginning of his tenure, Under Secretary Jay Cohen has insisted that this technology needs list be made public for his customers (DHS components, other government agencies, first responders, etc.) and their customers and vendors to know what technology gaps his directorate will be working to fill. Cohen is to be commended for doing this – when DHS first opened its doors, a listing of this sort would most likely have been kept under wraps, if not classified outright. Admiral Cohen is right, in my opinion. Publicizing the technology needs list is not going to educate people who want to do “bad things” or make them more aware of our vulnerabilities. A list of this nature provides focus and transparency into what S&T is doing. Congress and the American public can have confidence in this type system, and S&T is to be congratulated for publicizing its “wish list.”

What was also interesting is what was conspicuously absent from this listing of needs – and that is a reference to technologies that will help us build in greater resiliency. In fact, I could only find the word used once and that was in the section by the Infrastructure & Geophysical Division (thank you Chris Doyle) where it was mentioned as a desired outcome of improved monitoring and surveillance technologies. The report uses the word “recovery” several times, but in light of the House Homeland Security Committee’s recent month long series of hearings on the topic, I am surprised that “resiliency” was not more prominent.

While many of the S&T speakers talked about the need to respond and recover from a catastrophic incident (whether terrorist generated or from weather-related causes), the virtual absence of placing resilient technologies on the High Priority Needs list sends the message that resiliency is just not a big concern of the DHS component agencies. No one who understands DHS would believe that these agencies are fully prepared to respond and recover from a tragic incident should (or perhaps, when) it occurs.

Nor did Secretary Chertoff mention anything about resiliency or recovery in his opening remarks. In fact, having heard the Secretary speak twice this week (the other time was on the new Electronic System for Travel Authorization), it seems like he is a lot more comfortable talking about the past than articulating a vision for the future.

While there is much to be proud of during his tenure as Secretary, now is the time for him to talk about the transition to a new administration and what a DHS-of-the-future should look like. Secretary Chertoff is a man of universally admired intellect and laser-like focus. Perhaps he could even embrace the essence of science and technology, which is building a better future by solving the problems of the past. He is very good at telling us where we have been and what DHS has done. What I would like to hear is where we need to be and what we must do to get there.

Tags: homeland security technology
Posted in Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Science & Technology | Comments