|     |     |  About Us   |   Archives   |   Contact Us |

Sign up for Security Debrief Newsletters



Archive for July, 2008

« Older Entries

Reasonable Search and Seizure at the Border

Thursday, July 31st, 2008

Both the fourth circuit and the ninth circuit courts have ruled that Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) searches of laptops and other electronics are legal; however, people are still proclaiming their protests.  A recent USA Today op-ed accused the CBP practice to be “without focus” and “arbitrar[y].”  Constitutional objections have also been invoked, claiming the searches to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

To call on the words of the Fourth Amendment myself, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…” is not being violated.  The goal of the CBP to stop information relating to terrorist plots and child pornography is perfectly reasonable.

In recent testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, I made the point that hundreds of millions of people cross the U.S. border each year in numbers approaching twice the population of the United States.  By not doing thorough checks at the border, we are essentially giving these hundreds of millions of people free reign in our country. There have been numerous instances where information gathered from terrorist laptops has provided crucial information.  Thorough inspections at the border even go beyond protecting against terrorism alone, and venture into the realm of drug, weapons, and human trafficking.  Looking at these facts laptop searches are hardly “unreasonable” or “arbitrar[y].”

Tags:
Posted in Border Security | Comments

Congress Needs to Support Technical Assistance for First Responders & Port Security

Wednesday, July 30th, 2008

We are providing too much money in port security not to invest pennies to save dollars. DHS, through the CEDAP and SAVER Program, have provided a significant amount of financial assistance to first responders conducting objective assessments and validations on commercial equipment and systems. The programs also release these results along with other relevant equipment information to the community in an operationally useful form.

Since CEDAP’s inception in 2005, DHS has supplied an estimated 5,800 direct assistance awards worth more than $103 million to smaller communities nationwide. As part of the 2007 program, DHS provided $33.7 million to fund equipment and training for first responders. One of CEDAP’s very first evaluations was for night vision equipment used in a marine environment. Working with the Seattle Fire Department, the program interfaced with several small jurisdictions surrounding and protecting the port of Seattle. The success this type of evaluation provides a great platform to apply it to jurisdictions across America.

Early last year, I approached DHS officials hoping to find assistance in testing and evaluation for the ports as we began moving our security purchases from guns, guards and gates to more sophisticated technology that will require millions of dollars in security spending. The Port Security Council, working with America’s public ports, Congress and the Administration, had been successful in achieving significant amounts of assistance for the Port Security Grant Program and wanted to find ways to make prudent buying decisions.

The Department was eager to help and in March of 2007, DHS began the process of evaluating the port’s equipment priorities. This led DHS to publish an internal report based on a June focus group. The meetings with port security and law enforcement officials have lead the program to move forward in assisting ports with critically needed assessments. The first priorities identified were the TWIC credential readers and under water sonar equipment requirements. The agency has now engaged in assisting in those evaluations with FY’08 funds.

This is just the beginning of a needed relationship than can assist America’s ports and surrounding jurisdictions with up front technical assistance before they invest millions of dollars in equipment to protect our nation’s waterways and the critical infrastructure at our seaports.

The program started at $50 million and now is on the verge of extinction. We need to consider funding this program with at least $40 million a year, an amount that is equivalent to small potatoes in the overall scheme of things but is critically important if we are to make prudent buying decisions and learn how to properly use the equipment we purchase.

Currently, the House has eliminated funding for this program out of the FY’09 appropriations bill, labeling CEDAP and SAVER as duplicate programs, yet the Senate has $10 million slated. We all understand security spending needs to be scrutinized. This program, however, is one that passes the test and can hardly be considered as being duplicative. Hundreds of jurisdictions have benefited and the ports find it of great value. I urge Congress to continue this successful program. Being penny wise and pound foolish is not the best course of action.

Tags:
Posted in Maritime & Seaport Security | Comments

David Olive Joins Panel to Discuss Congressional Oversight of DHS

Monday, July 28th, 2008

Security DeBrief contributor and Olive, Edwards & Cooper principal David Olive will join a panel discussion sponsored by the Heritage Foundation to address the failure of Congress’ oversight for the Department of Homeland Security.

The panel discussion will follow keynote remarks by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) and will take place on Wednesday, July 30th, at 11:00 a.m at the Heritage Foundation (214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington DC). On the panel, Olive will be joined by DHS Deputy Secretary Paul Schneider, BAE Systems Vice President John Gannon, and Dr. James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation who will moderate the discussion.

Earlier this summer, Olive published “Congress, Heal Thyself” – an op-editorial piece in The Hill newspaper- that addressed the need to reform the current system that involves eighty-plus Congressional committees with authority over the Department. The piece has ignited extensive and bipartisan commentary demanding that Congress implement the recommendation by the 9/11 Commission that it reform its maze of committee oversight that often sets competing and often conflicting priorities.

For more details about the event, visit the Heritage web site.

Tags:
Posted in Congress, Politics & PR | Comments

Technology Solutions for Air Cargo

Friday, July 25th, 2008

The TSA’s air cargo screening regime has gotten much attention lately, including significant time at two recent Congressional hearings.  As part of the 9/11 Act, TSA is required to screen 50% of air cargo carried on passenger aircraft by February 2009 and 100% of air cargo by August 2010, at a level “commensurate” to that of checked baggage.

Since the Administration has not asked for nor has the Congress appropriated sufficient funds, TSA has decided to implement a Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP).  Under this regime, third-party vendors (such as freight forwarders, indirect air carriers, shippers, etc.) volunteer to participate to screen cargo earlier in the supply chain, before it reaches the airport.  Other than supplying canine units, the TSA will be in an oversight and inspection role only.

While this approach leaves a lot of unanswered questions on the table, I’m going to cut to the chase and focus on the technology to accomplish this screening.  A couple of weeks ago DHS’ S&T Directorate testified before the House Homeland Security Committee on this subject.  Their testimony was disappointing.  After several years of Congress requiring DHS to screen more and more cargo, it appears the department is no closer to improving various technology solutions.

S&T’s principal technology approach is to adopt the various screening technologies being used for passengers checked baggage (EDS, ETD) for the cargo environment.  While this sounds good, I have some reservations.  First, much work has been involved in getting EDS false alarm rates at an acceptable level when screening checked baggage.  When you begin to screen air cargo, with much more diverse contents, with EDS the false alarms are likely to increase.  In addition, this equipment is expensive and will likely not be widely deployed or used by third-party vendors.

S&T has spent the past 3 years conducting three separate tests to screen break bulk cargo.  Instead of looking at new and innovative technologies, they simply used existing equipment TSA uses to screen passengers and baggage.  Hardly the type of vision needed for this application.

S&T has also spent minimal time and resources looking at advanced x-ray systems to screen palletized cargo.  Right now, both TSA and S&T are saying that the screening of break bulk cargo is the only way to accomplish the Congressional mandates.  This requires the palletized cargo to be broken down and repackaged, once screening is complete.   This is time intensive and costly.  S&T should be engaged in an aggressive R&D program to get large scale air cargo screening technology out the door in the next 12 – 18 months, instead of the 3 – 5 years it had testified to.

S&T is not alone here.  TSA must do its part.  As of today, TSA has not completed its assessment of which technologies (that are available today) are effective for screening air cargo.  Thus, these third-party vendors who will implement the CCSP are not running out to purchase equipment.  The longer TSA delays its assessment, the more risk faces the program and deadlines Congress established.

Tags:
Posted in Aviation and airport security | Comments

Must Read Articles: Congress Should Reform Its Homeland Security Maze

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

A growing, urgent and bipartisan consensus is emerging to demand that Congress implement the recommendation by the 9/11 Commission that it reform its maze of eighty-plus committees that set competing and often conflicting priorities.

A few must-read articles include:

CQ Homeland Security story notes that as Congress looks toward DHS Transition, with a series of hearings, members of the 9/11 Commission urge that it clean up its own house:

Sept. 11 commissioners said that if Congress wants to find an example of flagrant disregard for their recommendations, it needs only to look in the mirror.

They said Congress seems to have ignored a crucial recommendation in their report: consolidate DHS oversight to one authorizing committee and one appropriations subcommittee in each chamber.

“Congress needs to establish for the Department of Homeland Security the kind of clear authority and responsibility that exist to enable the Justice Department to deal with crime and the Defense Department to deal with threats to national security,” the report said.

[9/11 Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton] said that just because DHS needs to step up its performance doesn’t let Congress off the hook.

“When you have that many committees and subcommittees to report to, it’s an absurdity,” he said. “Congress has to get its part in order, too.”

In a NY Times Op-Ed, DHS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Stephen Heifetz Pleads with Congress to Take Action and Reform Its Conflicting Maze of Oversight Committees (”The Risk of Too Much Oversight”)

In a city known for paralyzing bureaucratic turf fights, one of the most debilitating and potentially disastrous has received scant attention: it’s the Congressional mess that produces tangled homeland security laws. This tangle obstructs our ability to prioritize risks at the Department of Homeland Security, where I work alongside more than 200,000 colleagues, almost all of us civil servants (not political appointees) who will remain in place after the election.

In a backgrounder for the Heritage Foundation, Jena Baker McNeil comments on the dire need for an overhaul of Congressional oversight of DHS.

Despite the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that Congress consolidate oversight of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) into a single, principal point of oversight, Congress has done little to implement this recommendation.

Congress’s commitment to the status quo threatens the DHS’s ability to identify and respond effectively to security threats. The current oversight system is impractical, constitutionally deficient, and simply poor management. Congress should immediately take steps to streamline oversight of the DHS.

Dating back to 2004, the Center for Strategic Studies hosted a Task Force sponsoring the bipartisan Tom Foley, Bob Livingston, Warren Ruddman and CharlesRobb reprimanding Congress for failing to take action and reform its mangled system:

Congress has failed to remove a major impediment to effective homeland security: the balkanized and dysfunctional oversight of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).

David Olive: Congress, Heal Thyself

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.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Featured Feed, Management & Administration | Comments

Blackwater Moves Strategically, Portrays it Innocently

Thursday, July 24th, 2008

It is always interesting to see the spin placed on a cold hard business decision for the media.  Put simply, Eric Prince and his staff have played a blinder over the last 48 hours.  Inviting the press into their headquarters, Eric Prince explained that Blackwater Worldwide would be reducing the reliance on security, particularly as this part of the business was an unintended consequence and never part of the overall business plan.  The intention is to reduce security as part of the company’s revenue balance, immediately pushing below 30% with the eventual aim of single digit figures.  This would allow increased effort to be placed on logistics, transport and training.

I am interested to note that little has been made of this being a purely financial decision; Eric Prince and his staff know that the size of the PMC market in Iraq is decreasing and will hit the point where it decreases dramatically at a quick pace.  The same market is proportionally a lot less in AFG.  I strongly suspect that while the going is still good they are recommitting their resources within BW Worldwide to other, more lucrative and growing markets elsewhere. For those who are business school minded, they are going to continue to milk their cash cow, while limiting their exposure to that market (don’t forget the amount of capital investment required for high risk security provision) and exploring new opportunities.

This announcement was the most effective way to gain publicity for the increasing activities while making a solid attempt at defusing any negative comments about previous activities.  Bear in mind that the expansion into new environments creates a telescoping effect; their people on the ground can identify new opportunities which Blackwater Worldwide can exploit in the future.  You will note that Eric Prince didn’t write off the possibility of PMC activities in the future if the conditions were right.

Blackwater’s shift of emphasis is echoed by other PMCs looking for new opportunities; training for domestic (US) law enforcement is a popular area to increase effort, as is the widening of scope and subject material for training to DoD.  The PMC industry is about to suffer a contraction, and this will be seen in the eradication of generic, middle sized companies and the ‘bottom-feeding’ companies that have survived and made a bit of money in Iraq, but that will be closed out as the market shrinks.

The changes in the industry will be beneficial, but don’t imagine for a second that the PMC industry’s security capability is about to wither and die.  Providing security is a business opportunity, and as long as the opportunities exist, so will the companies willing to service that need.  The Government must ensure that when that need is met, whenever, wherever, under any conditions, the PMC and its employees maintain the highest standards, because it is against their actions that the US Government will be judged, whether they were involved or not.

Tags:
Posted in Law Enforcement | Comments

Looking to Our Airports

Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008

The significant emphasis on security in the world’s airports and aircraft since 9/11 has led to greatly improved screening capabilities and new determination to prevent attacks of both the on-board and missile typse. However, on a recent flight I noticed that within a couple of hundred meters there were residential, pseudo residential or mixed residential / commercial areas, which brought to mind one of the classic attacks by the Provisional IRA – the mortaring of London’s Heathrow airport. It must be pointed out that there was considerable technical sophistication brought to bear, as the IRA had been improvising mortars for decades by that point. However, the details on building improvised mortars are not impossible to acquire – indeed, theoretically functioning military light and medium mortars (I’m thinking in the 81mm, ‘man-portable’ range) could be procured in South America and smuggled into the US.

The improvised version, often a rack of tubes with a timer concealed in a camper van or similar with a fabric roof painted and stretched to look like the real roof under casual inspection, is then parked within range of the airport, ideally at a place where the range has been calculated to spread the mortars around the areas of the taxiway where there are most likely to be hits on planes. It would be a lot more dangerous to man and control a real mortar, but completely feasible, particularly if one is not worried about being caught.

What are the implications? If there is a perceived threat of such an asymmetric attack, then every space where a vehicle can be parked within the range of an improvised system must be subject to some kind of monitoring; again, greatly increasing the burden on security systems and response. If there is the threat of the use of an attack using conventional mortars, then there should be significantly more intelligence warning (the training in the use of fire control as well as mortar systems), but the burden on finding the system, which is proportionately significantly busier given 3 mile-ish ranges, before an attack (after the attack starts it is simple to follow the noise – and flash if at at night), looking for what is relatively a very small target.

The real lessons? There are two. Asymmetric threats remain, and when dealing with an asymmetric threat both imagination as it relates to possible attack profiles, combined with contingency planning that deals with effects, not causes, is imperative.

Like the Twin Towers during 9/11, we cannot prepare for every possible contingency before they occur, but effective mitigation and emergency response plans – those that address the effects, whatever the causes – are essential.

Tags:
Posted in Aviation and airport security | Comments

Strange Things at the NY Times & in Congress

Monday, July 21st, 2008

Strange things are happening and I’m not sure why. For example, I am recommending a piece in the New York Times – a once great newspaper that frankly has not been so great lately. In today’s edition (July 21, 2008) Stephen Heifetz, who is the DHS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development, has written a great op-ed entitled, “The Risk of Too Much Oversight.” Given the past performance of the “Old Gray Lady,” I’m stunned that the New York Times had the wisdom to post such words given they’ve lacked the guts to print responses by DHS Sec. Chertoff to some of the Times’ other misguided and misreported pieces and editorials on border security, immigration, etc. Heifetz’s eloquent words echo a number of other recent op-ed’s, articles and speeches on this subject – it seems that what were once considered random voices in the wilderness calling for improvements to Congressional oversight are starting to assemble and become a louder and louder choir singing a hymn to Congress to ‘heal thyself.’

With any luck, when the McCain and Obama campaigns get around to articulating what homeland security will look like in their prospective administrations, this issue will be one of the first on their list to address. While the Executive Branch has no authority to amend how Congress executes its oversight over DHS or any other federal department or agency, it can provide fresh leadership and new focus in the opening months of the new administration on how both branches can do business in a better and much more strategic fashion than is happening now. The present environment serves no one effectively, least of all the American public who expect DHS’ leaders to be leading their respective mission assignments and not reciting testimony and talking points for the umpteenth time or posing for the C-Span television cameras.

No one doubts the need for congressional oversight, or the need for our elected representatives to be asking tough questions about how our country secures its citizenry, commerce or way of life. It requires leadership to make that oversight effective and thus far, leadership on this issue has been non-existent from the top tier leaders in Congress. Who knows – maybe some of those New York Times readers will wake up to that fact once they read Heifetz’s op-ed today and perhaps might actually say something about it to some of those leaders.

Anything is possible – even saying nice things about DHS, FEMA and other components of the Department.

There was a time when that might have been seen as the impossible dream, but recent speeches by Rep Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Rep. Jim Langevin (D-RI) and some of the opening statements by Members of Congress in hearings over the past few weeks have been generous in their praise and respect for the efforts of Sec. Chertoff, his leadership team and the more than 200,000 people in the Department who work tirelessly to keep the country safe and secure. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) even went so far as to put his praise in writing via a July 18th letter he sent commending the Department and in particular FEMA for their work with the recent Midwest floods. Commenting on good news has to be a nice change of pace for these Congressional leaders, and I’m sure that getting something positive in the mail has to be refreshing for DHS.

That’s what may be the strangest thing of all – people have actually had some good things to say about DHS, FEMA and others. Wow! Imagine that. I wasn’t sure we’d ever hear Congress, the media or for that matter anyone say something nice about DHS, its leadership or its performance but then again, I didn’t think the New York Times had the sense to post a reasonable and factual op-ed either.

Life is indeed strange but if this is a trend – reason printed in the Old Gray Lady; a growing chorus for reforming Congressional oversight; recognizing and praising DHS’ leaders and performance – I’d like it to continue.

Who knows, we just might enjoy it being ‘strange’ for a while…

Tags: , ,
Posted in Congress, Politics & PR | Comments

Security? Try Crisis!

Monday, July 21st, 2008

The truth is out:  Congress’ attempt at “energy security” in fact helped cause a global food crisis.  According to a confidential World Bank study, as reported by The Guardian, biofuels are the primary cause of the global food crisis, forcing up world food prices by 75%.  This is a shocking difference from the usual 3% impact the US government has been reporting.  In America, the production of these biofuels was legislated by Congress, through subsidies and mandates requiring their production.

The biofuel bonanza began with the rush to provide what congress terms “energy security,” by way of biolfuels that would supposedly make us less dependent on foreign oil.  By labeling high gas prices and the oil markets as an issue of “energy security,” they were able to push through legislation that in fact has nothing to do with securing our nation. As usual, government intervention did not take into account the far reaching costs, while it did focus on misguided projections of possible benefits.

The outcome?  Despite increased production of biofuels, as an “energy alternative,” the price of gas at the pump has topped $4.00/gallon, and the price of a barrel of oil has increased to $143.  The production has not changed global climates, though it was intended to save the world from global warming.  The real result is a shortage of grain for food, and food prices that have reached crisis levels.  As David King, UK government’s former chief scientific adviser, is quoted in the Guardian article, “All we are doing by supporting these is subsidizing higher food prices, while doing nothing to tackle climate change.”

Tags:
Posted in Featured Feed | Comments

Denver: Legislating Against the Outdated Lessons of the Last War

Monday, July 21st, 2008

Recent legislation in Denver has outlawed the materials necessary to obstruct passage and access, such as chains, handcuffs, etc, and ‘noxious materials’, such as fecal matter.  One would have thought the latter was already covered by statute, but perhaps not.  The Denver City Council stated that having learned the lessons of Seattle, they are determined to equip the police with the ability to ensure good public order.

You may recall that I commented on the Denver PD’s purchase of pepper ball guns.  You may also be aware that the council passed up on the opportunity to outlaw items such as gas masks and bullet proof vests, deeming these items defensive in nature.  If there was a Darwinism award for self-defeating policy, this must be it.  The council, in one fell swoop, has just failed to make illegal the very equipments that best defeat the items bought by the Denver PD – I was never a fan of pepper ball guns to start with as I believe they are easily defeated anyway, but this is ridiculous.

I have mentioned before the need for a capability development approach to problems.  Such an approach melds together policy, doctrine, training, personnel, equipment, equipment support (maintenance and the like), logistics, media relations, etc.  Clearly this process was not only weak, but failed, in this instance.

Let us look briefly at the implications of allowing gas masks and bullet proof vests.  You may have seen footage of rioters in goggles and bandannas protecting their eyes and mouth.  This is to defeat or inhibit the effects of tear or CS gas use on a crowd.  Clearly, a gas mask is a far better item to defeat these threats, be it used at the crowd (gas) or individual (pepper ball) level.  Bullet proof vests inhibit the effect of trajectory based weapons, such as baton rounds.  They also inhibit the effect of energy displacement weapons such as Taser, and the side effect of the pepper ball rounds.  Effectively, the council has incentivised the crowd to move away from obstructive tactics and move quickly to full-on adversarial, riot-like tactics.  Talk about creating the conditions for the failure of pro-active policing of in lieu of forcing the reactive policing of disorder.  Thos seeking to protest will now come equipped with defensive capabilities that are not illegal, and seek to make their point with full-on violence.

As the days tick by I think it is increasingly likely that The Densus Group will be incorporating the run up to the DNC as a case study of how not to do it in its lecture on effective public order operations.  As I’ve said before, I don’t want to say I told you so after the DNC is finished, but I am very worried that I am going to be in a position to do so.

I worry that the Denver PD are doing the best they can under the circumstances, but are being forced into an untenable situation by the forces around them.  Time will tell.

Tags:
Posted in Law Enforcement | Comments

A Response to Under Secretary Allen’s NAO Posting

Friday, July 18th, 2008

On July 15th, DHS’ Under Secretary for Intelligence & Analysis, Charlie Allen posted on the Department’s Leadership Journal blog about the National Applications Office (NAO). Entitled ‘Why the Country Needs the National Applications Office,’ the posting responds to criticisms that I and many others have offered about the NAO.

Under Secretary Allen was right on the money on several things and I applaud his response. While I could nit-pick about a couple of things he presented (I won’t), I only had one major problem with his posting. Everything that was presented – what the NAO would be doing; how it would help; who had reviewed its plans and signed off; etc. – should have been made public months ago!

In fact, there was more detail and vision offered in Under Secretary Allen’s posting than had been previously offered in any other public forum or material released by the Department, its leadership or reported by the media. That is what is so frustrating part about this whole episode.

The NAO could be a tremendous asset to the Department’s mission. The fact that it was not pro-actively articulated, pushed and defended in a public and transparent way has left the NAO as a concept stuck on paper and not an operational reality that could provide real benefit to the homeland mission.

There is literally an entire community of public and private sector geospatial users and service providers (non-intelligence/non-military) who could have been engaged in the formation of the NAO but weren’t. These were champions, by nature of their record and performance who had the public’s confidence (and acceptance) yet were never called upon to be a part of this effort. Not engaging them, in favor of relying on the intelligence/military communities (and their space-based assets), was a tremendous misstep in establishing a comfort and confidence level with the Congress and others who have voiced concern about the NAO. As a result of this misstep, it is not surprising that critics, including me have been raising their voices saying, “Now wait just a minute now. You want to do what?”

In an era when real questions and issues about privacy and civil liberties are raised, and space-based military and intelligence assets are proposed for use for ‘domestic purposes,’ it is paramount that mission requirements and operations are clearly defined and publicly articulated at the outset.

Under Secretary Allen did that in his posting this week and it is my hope that he and the members of his team will do so again when the next debate on the NAO occurs.

If they do, they just might get an NAO. If they invite individuals outside of the intelligence/military crowd to work with them on an ‘NAO mission,’ they might just get it even sooner…

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR | Comments

And The Truth Shall Set You Free…

Thursday, July 17th, 2008

So it turns out that as the Bush Presidency enters its twilight, Vice President Cheney is managing to keep himself busy. According to Jason Burnett, who recently resigned as Associate Deputy Administrator of the EPA, the Veep’s Office has been hard at work censoring congressional testimony. Under most other Administrations, this would be a real shock and awe moment, but not for our dynamic duo! For our favorite lame duck and his (in)famous hunting guru, this is simply par for the course. Well done, boys. When it comes to sticking it to the environment, you’re nothing if not consistent. The fact that the ‘censorship’ news broke the same day the Administration announced it was lifting the Executive Order banning offshore drilling made it a red-letter day for polluters everywhere!

Before you get ahead of yourself, yes, I realize that this is a security blog and not a hangout spot for Woody Harrelson and Dennis Kucinich. That said, the sooner people recognize that ‘the environment’ is a security issue, the better. Frankly, we may be running out of time. Don’t believe me? Well, try a few fun environmental facts on for size:

  • *Water shortages in China, caused by drought and increased demand within urban areas, are beginning to impact the country’s grain production. As less water becomes available for growing, China will need to begin importing grain from the global market. Where else are the 1.2 billion people currently supported by irrigated lands in China supposed to get their grain? The problem is that as China drives up the demand for grain imports to higher and eventually impossible levels, little things like the world’s food security will be impacted. And you were upset when Costco capped your rice purchases to 80-pound bags! Give it 5 years and you’ll really be tickled. Oh well, so what, right? The Olympics are just around the corner – Beijing here we come baby!
  • *A 2007 report issued by the national security think tank The CNA Corporation and written by 11 generals and admirals entitled “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change” provides a clear warning that “projected climate change will seriously exacerbate already marginal living standards in many Asian, African, and Middle Eastern nations, causing widespread political instability and the likelihood of failed states…. The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide, and the growth of terrorism.” Whoa… talk about a downer! As if I wasn’t thoroughly depressed by their analysis, the generals and admirals went on to say that the United States will likely be called on to provide stability, economic and military support, and hunger relief to those nations. Sweet! Good thing we don’t hold those guys accountable to any real environmental standards as a condition of trading with them, – we wouldn’t want to miss the fun of cleaning up their mess.
  • *In case you haven’t noticed lately, we’ve had a good bit of environmental ‘action’ here in the homeland. Think I’m exaggerating? Well flip on the TV tonight and you’re guaranteed to see California burning, some part of the Mid West underwater, a town in tattered pieces from a ‘random’ tornado, and possibly a hurricane making landfall on an overpopulated barrier island off the coast of South Florida. Wow, maybe those crazy liberals aren’t so far-out with their notions about the link between climate change and extreme weather. But hey, at least the National Guard will stay busy! Do the math people: 2 + 2 = 4.
  • *Oil. Nuff said…

If there is a point to be made here it’s that whether we like it or not, the security of our nation is tied to the environmental health of the planet. Ignoring, or worse yet, covering up the facts, is like telling Lindsay Lohan she can sing – it’s plain wrong and no good can come of it.

This Administration knows better than to lie about the environment and its impact on the health of Americans. Like all of us, President Bush and Vice President Cheney need to remember the aftermath of 9/11, when heroes gathered daily to help clear debris and search out the remains of the fallen. It was there at Ground Zero, where architectural greatness and innocent life were replaced by rubble and pain that the valiant gathered to labor on behalf of a nation. When concerns about the environmental quality at Ground Zero were raised, the EPA responded by issuing statements intended to send “an overriding message that there was no significant threat to human health.” Two years later, the Agency’s Inspector General issued a different kind of statement; a report indicating that the White House had altered EPA’s findings to make the dangerous environmental realities at Ground Zero sound “less alarming.” I wish I had something funny to say about this one, something witty or otherwise entertaining, but I don’t. In their efforts to reopen Wall Street and calm fears, the Administration fudged the report. While their intentions may have been good, they lied to do it, and the problem with most lies is that they ultimately end up hurting people (not to mention that they can catch up with you). Too many of the 40,000+ rescue workers have gotten sick or died as a result of their work at Ground Zero. While it is significant to shine a light on the ‘why,’ I won’t belittle their courage by trying to get a cheap laugh out of their pain.

A series of words comes to mind about now: “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Let’s hope that this latest episode will serve as a wake-up call to this and future administrations that when it comes to the environment, our nation’s security, or any other issue – those words will mean something, or “so help us God…”

Read L. Vance Taylor’s biography.

Tags:
Posted in Critical Infrastructure | Comments

Debating the DHS Transition

Wednesday, July 16th, 2008

There is reason to be encouraged about the Department of Homeland Security’s transition process. I’ve already written about some of the steps the Department has taken, the most recent of which is naming RADM John Acton, USCGR as the Department’s transition manager under Elaine Duke. John is an excellent choice – thoughtful, capable and someone who is not jockeying for a position in the new administration.

But even more hopeful is the broader debate among think tanks, journalists, policymakers and pundits about the proper future of the Department and the next administration’s approach to homeland security. The Homeland Defense Journal recently published the results of a survey of homeland security professionals about the future of homeland security. Last week, they also sponsored a half day program on transition where Congressmen Cuellar and Langevin spoke and cogently discussed what they see as priorities during and after the transition. Not surprisingly, the Center for American Progress and the ThirdWay are preparing thoughtful briefing papers for the next administration as are other think tanks around Washington.

What I have seen and heard in these endeavors are thoughtful, informed discussions about the best ideas for homeland security. Remarkably, regardless of the forum, these discussions have not been discernibly partisan, an observation which underscores a long held belief of mine that security issues should not – and historically, have not been – overtly partisan.

But not all is rosy. At some of the same fora, I hear ill-informed and downright silly comments from people who should know better. Usually these are people whose primary role is as a political advisor and who are attempting to discuss homeland security without having given the topic much serious thought. They typically resort to hackneyed slogans and examples that do little to promote our national homeland security agenda. When I hear these people expound on homeland security, I get worried. The next president will have a choice to make – will he put people in charge of the homeland security transition who see it as a partisan political issue or professionals who are dedicated to ensuring homeland security moves in the right direction regardless of partisan ties?

The upshot of these discussions is that there is a consensus, or at least some common themes, developing in both political camps about the future of the Department and homeland security more generally.

• Prepare For Day One. The challenge here is to move beyond the “rah-rah” rhetoric to focus on reality. Such action requires a nuts and bolts approach to preparation, including early identification of key political appointees, identification and transfer of career professionals into the right positions, rapid ramp-up of key players, and execution of exercises (and more exercises) during transition.

• Avoid Wholesale Reorganization. Give the Department a chance to catch its breath and institutionalize processes. But also reduce the number of direct reports to the Secretary and increase the authority and responsibility of other senior leaders in the Department.

• Settle The Existential Question That the Department Has Responsibility For All Hazards. While we must plan for and protect against catastrophic man made events, the reality is that when we plan and prepare for other catastrophes that are natural in origin, we simultaneously advance our capacity to deal with the less probable but more catastrophic terrorist events.

• Combine The Homeland Security Council (HSC) Into The National Security Council (NSC). Even veterans of this administration see this as a smart move, the caveat being that whoever has responsibility for the “HSC portfolio” must have ready access to the President.

• Streamline Congressional Oversight. At the risk of sounding “flip,” this is a “no-brainer.” Congress itself understands the dysfunction the current system creates.

• Increase The National Focus On Resiliency. This is one of the strongest points of consensus. While the devil is in the details, there is still widespread recognition that, should there be an attack, we must restore our various systems quickly and minimize impact on our economy and way of life.

• Identify And Sharpen Our Focus On Our Priorities. While the debate over what our priorities are and should be will continue, there is significant agreement that we must do a better job identifying and sharpening our focus on these priorities.

• Draw On Experience. Perhaps most heartening to me as a career federal employee is a recognition of the tremendous talent and knowledge resident in the career work force, both federal and non- federal. The challenge here is to identify talented leaders among these folks and to restore the confidence and morale of the career workforce.

What I still haven’t heard from either campaign yet is a commitment to establish an enlightened transition team. It’s not too early for both candidates to commit to this task and to outline the steps for a serious transition process.

Tags:
Posted in Management & Administration | Comments

The Irony of Congressoinal Hearings on 9/11 Recommendations

Wednesday, July 16th, 2008

The irony is a little too delicious to pass up. The House Homeland Security Committee is holding hearings this month on how well the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission are being implemented by the Department of Homeland Security.

Guess what won’t be on the agenda? Congress’s own failure to act.

Various members of Congress and the long list of committees spend righteous days on end — months on end — analyzing and scrutinizing and poking and oversighting everybody else in the world about how well they are implementing the recommendations, but they are incapable of even acknowledging the 9/11 Commission’s (and that of just about every other homeland security expert and policy wonk) urging Congress to streamline its absurdly unwieldy potpourri of committees claiming oversight jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security.

Sometimes it seems like the poor folks at DHS spend more time answering questions during congressional committees than they do actually trying to protect the homeland.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Management & Administration | Comments

Admiral Brian Peterman: A Public Servant Who Will Be Missed

Wednesday, July 16th, 2008

Understandably, much of the public and congressional scrutiny of the government’s response to 9/11 has focused on the performance of our cabinet secretaries and other officials who had the responsibility to explain to the public what the government was doing to prevent other attacks. To the extent that aides have received attention for their activities, it is almost always negative – DOJ lawyer John Yoo comes to mind. However, there are many who served well and ably.

I was reminded of the skill of one such individual when I attended the change of command and retirement ceremony for U.S. Coast Guard Vice Admiral Brian Peterman who was responsible for the Atlantic Command of the Coast Guard until last Thursday. His record of service over three decades at the Coast Guard itself is worthy of high praise. However, it is his two years at the White House Homeland Security Council as Special Assistant to the President for Border and Transportation Security during the creation of DHS that deserves special attention.

Admiral Peterman was the day-to-day lead in the White House as the executive branch tried to build a new series of border security programs and agencies to look for the needles in the haystack of legitimate and necessary commerce and travel.

Problems which had festered for years – such as the failure to build a biometric entry system later known as US-VISIT – required intense interagency deliberation and difficult tradeoffs between current and next generation technologies.

Refereeing between the FBI and the new DHS was no easy task especially as the immigration and customs agencies were scrambled into CBP, ICE, and CIS.

The creation of the Transportation Security Administration, with all of its privacy and economic impacts, came under Admiral Peterman’s watch.

And the development of a layered maritime security strategy led by the Coast Guard and CBP was overseen by Peterman and his staff.

In short, a terrorist operative hoping to use the flow of international commerce against us found his job all the more difficult because of the security programs which Admiral Peterman oversaw and directed.

I don’t know if there will be a New York Times best seller about Admiral Peterman’s work. But for those of us who were lucky enough to serve with him – many of whom journeyed to Portsmouth last week to pay tribute – the border security record of the past six years is proof enough.

Posted in Border Security, Management & Administration, Maritime & Seaport Security, Smuggling, Supply Chain Security, Transportation Security | Comments

Is Osama bin Laden the New Paris Hilton?

Tuesday, July 15th, 2008

Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, has called for banning al Qaeda from the Internet.  Or at least from YouTube. (Isn’t that the same thing?) It’s an endearing, “bless his heart” kind of moment. We all support the senator’s noble effort to fight al Qaeda … even as most of us are amazed at his lack of understanding of how the Internet works. Perhaps he should call Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and ask him how China’s efforts to ban the Internet have worked out.

In a previous post I noted that the federal government’s flawed grasp of Web 2.0 was contributing to flawed online counterterrorism policies. This demand by one of the nation’s premier homeland security policymakers to ban al Qaeda content from YouTube is a good example. Lieberman, who is one of the more knowledgeable and commonsensical legislators on national security matters, is living in a different era when it comes to communications and propaganda.

Fine, ban al Qaeda from YouTube. It won’t stop al Qaeda videos from popping up all over the Internet. On other video hosting sites. On any number of the millions of blogs. On social networking sites. Why not ban Harry Potter while you’re at it? And Paris Hilton. (God forbid an Osama sex tape should surface on the Internet.)

The federal government continues to operate under the strangely misguided notion that the Internet — that most democratic of all mediums, accessible to anybody with a computer — is some kind of monolithic infrastructure that can be controlled from the top, the digital equivalent of the Holy Roman Empire. Ban sinful literature from on high and it will disappear throughout the land, on pain of death.

Lieberman’s committee is holding hearings and issuing reports on how to break up al Qaeda’s presence online. The Department of Defense and our national security apparatus expend quite a bit of energy attempting to disrupt Qaeda communications online. How do we know what is al Qaeda as opposed to unlimited numbers of rip-offs and wannabes? Well, according to the government, the official stuff has Qaeda’s corporate logo, like Coca Cola.

Once Osama bin Laden becomes the new Bill Gates … have we won or lost the war on terrorism?

Don’t misunderstand: I’m not defending free speech for terrorists. However, I am arguing that issuing a government decree to cease and desist radical online propaganda is kind of like banning handguns in Washington, DC. It will allow for some political feel-good moments, but firearms and violence will continue to plague the streets if the root of the problem is not addressed.

America can’t win the fight against terrorist propaganda by trying to censor, stifle or ban the opposing voices. We can only win by employing the same tools and weapons our opponents are using and beating them at their own game. That strategy, however, will require a lot more time and intellectual sweat and frustration.

Isn’t it easier to just go back to your constituents and say: Rest easy, folks – I’ve banned al Qaeda.

Tags:
Posted in Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Radicalization | Comments

They’re Still Out There

Friday, July 11th, 2008

I thought I would return briefly to an issue that has somewhat sunk beneath the waves of the election and the financial crisis – which, my friends, will continue to get worse. (The effects of a worsening financial crisis on populations both domestic and foreign, and the challenges that a deteriorating economy poses for law enforcement globally is something I will return to at a later date).

A close and trusted friend of mine has recently concluded pre-deployment training to join a major Private Military Company (PMC) that will support a government department’s own security apparatus. The PMC – that shall remain nameless, as shall the friend and the government department– set deployment standards on its own and will also face additional set of higher standards from the government. The reasoning for this is unclear, but given that there was a greater cull as a result of the PMC’s own standards than those of the government department continues to worry me, as the government department’s standards are equal to those of the standards required for any member of any PMC deployed in Iraq in support of any government contract.

The short version? The government standards are not, in the opinion of any professional soldier I know who has also deployed with a PMC or worked in supervising PMCs, up to the required level. Interestingly, we should also be wondering why the government standards for their own people are so low (as these are the standards the government employees have to meet), compared to the high-end PMCs? Surely they should be setting the standards, particularly if they are subsequently going to oversee PMCs or proffer opinions about how the PMCs are operating. There is nothing worse as a professional than having someone who is sub-standard questioning your every move – it is a classic storyline in action movies, but horribly, horribly oppressive when it is happening on a daily basis. I have experienced this, and find it frustrating.

If we are going to follow a policy of allowing PMCs to operate and investigate their activities robustly, then those conducting the investigation must be trusted by the PMC personnel to investigate effectively, to understand the situation and then make an appropriate, fair judgment. Anecdotal evidence from a number of associates, let’s call them ‘high-end’ associates with very refined skill sets, proves that this is not the case. The professionals do not trust the investigators as they do not understand the problem set, and so those professionals that were left, those who understand and employ the use of force progression, are leaving rather than leave their fates in the hands of armchair experts.

As ever, there is a larger problem out there – what happens when there are no government standards to satisfy, because PMCs are operating outside a regulated zone. What happens after a Nisoor Square incident in North Kenya, for instance? History tells us that there will be massive knee-jerk reactions that suit the short term, but nothing will be done to create an effective solution for the long term. As troops withdraw PMCs will remain in Iraq, and PMCs will continue to be used globally. That another politically embarrassing incident involving a PMC will happen is not at question. The only question is where it will happen, and who will take responsibility for not fixing the situation properly the first time – one thing I can guarantee; there will be a lot of political smoke, but little fire.

Tags:
Posted in Featured Feed | Comments

Rescue Mission Delivers Potentially Fatal Blow To FARC

Wednesday, July 9th, 2008

The FARC was dealt a severe political, military and public relations defeat last week by the successful operation that led to the release of Ingrid Betencourt and the three American contractors. From a political perspective, the injustice and cruelty of the kidnapping by the FARC have been condemned internationally and has led to a diminishing number of supporters for the group. The days when the FARC was viewed as a meaningful political force are all but gone

Further, the number of FARC troops is down significantly, and the recent demise of a number of FARC leaders has only further deteriorated the organization’s military strength. The FARC has been soundly and routinely defeated on the battlefield by the Columbian military. To supplement its weakening military strength, the FARC has used kidnapped victims as an offensive weapon to create leverage with the Columbian government, but now even this weapon has been taken away.

Finally, the FARC has also suffered what is likely a lethal public relations blow by the kidnapping victims who have publicly renounced the FARC as nothing more than a terrorist organization – a message that we pushed regularly during my time as the head of the DEA, but was not widely advanced around the world. Now, however, it is not just the United States branding the FARC as a terrorist organization funded by illegal drug trafficking – the label is uniformly recognized across the globe.

The greatest irony is that the FARC’s number 1 nemesis is President Uribe. With this rescue mission and the subsequent fall-out, the FARC has managed to give Uribe a victory that will only strengthen his position with the Columbian public and allow him to be even more aggressive in his efforts against the FARC.

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

NAO – Start Over…

Tuesday, July 8th, 2008

For nearly a year, we’ve watched the battle over DHS’ proposed National Application Office (NAO) unfold. To say it is a lesson on how not to establish a federal program utilizing some of the most powerful technologies and capabilities would be an understatement.

From the very start, it seems the NAO’s mission and scope have been fumbled and foiled. If it were a cartoon character, it could easily be compared to Warner Bros’ favorite, Wile E Coyote, falling off of a cliff towards eminent doom only to be followed by huge boulders, grand pianos and an assortment of other large-scale items that land on top of him. Every step this Office has taken towards its establishment has suffered from political tone-deafness, poor communications and a lack of champions to make its case.

When the NAO was first mentioned, it was described as a resource that would utilize space based assets from the intelligence and military communities to support ‘domestic purposes.’ Domestic purposes can mean a lot of things, but when you talk about using space-based assets, – specifically intelligence and military satellites – it conjures up images of Big Brother, or Will Smith running through the streets trying to avoid the evil government guys who are tracking his every move as seen in the feature film Enemy of the State.

While the vision of fiction offered by Orwell and Hollywood may be extreme, when you take the terms “domestic purposes” and “space-based military and intelligence assets” and inject them into today’s highly charged and politically toxic environment, this office and all of its well-intentioned purposes were doomed from the start.

Over the past two years, there have been some very real and serious charges raised about warrantless surveillance of citizens; abuses of power by the FBI and others under the auspices of the Patriot Act; and concerns over privacy infringement and civil rights/civil liberties violations. The constant debate over these charges have raged almost non-stop in Congress, the media, courtrooms and communities across the country.

Why anyone at DHS thought the NAO could be established in this environment using these assets for domestic purposes with no one raising a hullabaloo is beyond comprehension. Considering the highly-charged environment in which this office was being established, DHS should have laid out an aggressive and proactive public relations effort to educate Congress, the media and American citizens about its mission. While legitimate questions over the judgment guiding this office’s formation and rollout should be raised, the failure of the NAO to come into being is a missed opportunity for all of us.

Outside of cyber and telecommunications, there is no other technology area that can contribute to the homeland security mission the way geospatial technologies can. Geospatial technologies provide for the collection of imagery and information by satellites, aircraft, cameras and other sensors. Since their introduction during the Cold War, there is no community, sector or interest on the planet that has not been mapped, imaged or analyzed in some way. Equipped with tremendous all-hazard capabilities, geospatial technologies can capture, analyze, measure, record, profile, model and articulate impacts of events before and after they occur.

The old phrase “a picture is worth a thousand words” does not begin to capture the possibilities that one image generated by geospatial technologies can offer to its users. Every person who gets an image will look at it in a thousand different ways. In fact, it can be said that “a pixel is worth millions of possibilities” – which is exactly what is so frustrating about the current NAO debacle.

Instead of using these technologies to bring various stakeholders together by improving information sharing, all-hazard planning and building collaborative working relationships, the Department chose a path where secrecy in collection, applications and delivery took priority over the potential rewards that collaboration could offer.

Choosing to use military and intelligence assets as your information conduit is a sure way to avoid bringing people to the table for collaborative usage. Such a position flies in the face of all of the noted pronouncements about DHS’ commitment to information sharing and building public and private sector partners in the national homeland mission.

I have no problem with the use of military and intelligence assets for legitimate and time-critical national, homeland and infrastructure security needs. For decades, these capabilities have saved countless lives, property and interests on this continent and others. The problem with starting an office such as the NAO when its information pipeline is so restrictive is the message, attitude and posture it transmits.

By limiting access, information and involvement to those precious few with the highest of security clearances, DHS is essentially saying This is a Members Only Club and only people ‘in the know’ can belong.

That is not a message I think DHS or anyone else can afford to relay anymore. Furthermore, by being cryptic in describing the NAO’s mission and approach without building a stakeholder community to support it, and being outright silent about its operations, the Department has sent nearly every conceivable wrong message to everyone about this office.

The end results of their actions are pretty apparent.

  • • An agitated Congress has delivered stern ‘No Confidence’ votes as evidenced by the language included in both the House and Senate Appropriations Bills that prevent any funds from being spent on the NAO; and,
  • • No state, local, tribal or private sector leader has come forward publicly to fight for the establishment of the NAO.

These two conditions tell you one thing – the NAO is dead in the water.

Had DHS been more forthcoming about its aspirations for this office – perhaps by defining ‘domestic purposes,’ focusing upon addressing ‘all-hazards’ at the outset and using the NAO-centered associated technologies and applications to enhance disaster/emergency management planning – they would not be in the position they are today.

DHS also would have been wise to discuss using commercially available satellites and resources (which are more than capable of doing the job) and publicly sharing some (but not all) of the requirements they wanted satisfied.

Had they taken this more public path, instead of the clandestine one it chose, the Department might have had a multitude of public and private sector stakeholders who could be championing the need for an NAO. Instead, they opted for the covert “Big Brother” route (and mechanisms) which has left them without Congressional support, without supportive stakeholders and without the NAO.

Given the time left on the Administration’s clock, the upcoming election and the operational needs of the transition, it is all but certain that the NAO or something like it will be left to a new Administration.

My advice to that new leadership about the NAO is quite simple: Start over. The premise and promise behind an NAO has tremendous potential given the nature of the technologies involved and the benefits they offer. If done right, an NAO could be a catalyst to help the Fusion Centers, as well as state, local, tribal and private sector members to become the information sharing leaders and networks that we need them to be.

The wreckage of the current NAO demonstrates the path and arrogance to be avoided. With the challenges the Department and its partners have to contend, having paths of inclusion and partnerships are paramount to future successes, technology adoption and relationship building – things that did not seem to be built into the NAO mission to begin with but should have been.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Congress, Politics & PR | Comments

New FBI Profiling Program Raises Concerns

Monday, July 7th, 2008

The American-Muslim community and civil rights organizations are alarmed at the proposed Justice Department policy change that would permit the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to consider race and ethnicity when opening an investigation.

Under the new guidelines, which could be implemented as early as the fall, the FBI could open preliminary terrorism investigations after analyzing public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that are deemed suspicious. Among the factors that could make someone suspect is travel to regions of the world known for terrorist activity, access to weapons or military training, along with the person’s race and ethnicity. The guidelines do not require congressional approval.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey acknowledged the change was underway last month, indicating the new guidelines were designed to ensure regulations for FBI terror investigations do not conflict with ones governing criminal investigations. Mukasey stated, “It’s necessary to put in place regulations that will allow the FBI to transfrom itself into an intelligence gathering organization in addition to just a crime solving organization.”

Let us not forget that what we are dealing with here is clearly 9/11 and the government’s efforts to avoid another terrorist act against the United States. The question is and will remain, if the FBI had such a program in the 90’s, would it have revealed the 9/11 conspiracy.

Should the U.S. government be interested in an individual that travels to the easternmost island of Mindanao, where rugged terrain, weak rule of law, sense of grievance among the country’s Muslim minority, and poverty make it difficult for the Philippine government to root out Abu Sayyaf and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front? Or how about travel to Trinidad and Tobago, and specifically Cunupia, Trinidad (a 45 minute drive from Port-au-Spain), where Jamaat al-Muslimeen, a militant and radical muslim organization operates?

Can we afford to ignore these facts? Can we afford to not have a law enforcement program that would capture and monitor such clearly relevant factors?

I understand the American-Muslim and civil rights organizations concerns with this new Justice Department program. It is clearly a program that will have to be closely monitored to ensure that civil rights and liberties are not trampled. Strong independent oversight is a must. The FBI, under Hoover, and current Director Robert Mueller (as evidenced by the Inspector General’s Report on National Security Letters), has had problems in “self-monitoring.”

The Department of Justice is still in the process of drafting the guidelines. We need this program, but we also need it to be scrutinized.

I hope the Justice Department is considering the establishment of an independent (within Department) review mechanism to ensure that the program is operating within its guidelines and reflects our traditional concerns for civil liberties, the First Amendment, and the emphasis on utilizing the least intrusive investigative tools possible.

Posted in Civil liberties & Privacy, Intelligence, Law Enforcement | Comments

« Older Entries
©2008 Adfero Group. All Rights Reserved.