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

Archive for October, 2008

Cyber in the White House – Haven’t we tried this path once before?

Friday, October 31st, 2008

As National Cyber Security Awareness Month comes to a close, the debate on who should be America’s lead on cyber security continues unabated. On Monday of this week, the US Air Force suspended its efforts to establish a Cyber Command until its new leadership takes over and determines what course they should take. While the USAF begins to figure out how much of the cyber skies they will end up patrolling, the battle over the civilian side of the America’s cyber house goes on at full throttle.

The latest installment in the debate comes courtesy of an article in Government Computer News reviewing the forthcoming report of the bipartisan Commission on Cyber Security for the 44th Presidency. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has been the point for assembling the Commission’s report, and details on its preliminary findings are starting to come out. Most notable will be its recommendation to make the White House the point for cyber security, not DHS as it is presently under Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23.

While this Commission’s forthcoming recommendation has hardly been a secret, I still scratch my head in wonder and ask “Why?”

The Commission is made up of some of the smartest people in the country on this issue. Yet for all of their intellectual capacity and operational experience on this issue, I am bewildered they would choose a proven path of frustration and futility where failure is not an option.

It is a great campaign line and applause generator to stand up and say that the White House is going to take command on something. Republican or Democrat, we have many examples when Administrations have stood up to say “We are going to run this out of White House because it is important!” The Administration then finds someone with a great name and impressive reputation, dubs them a ‘Czar’ of something and then holds an East Room or Rose Garden ceremony to swear them in and charge them to get going on their mission. At this point the camera flashbulbs go off; the assembled crowd rises up to clap and then a bunch of people go out to talk to reporters about ‘how wonderful this is,’ and ‘what a difference this will make.’

But does it?

If recent history is any indicator, we’ve all been to this picture show before and it was not what we wanted. – I can’t believe folks as smart as this Commission don’t see that.

Cool titles, White House offices and bully pulpits can do many things but they cannot be the game changers without having real authority over personnel, programs and budgets to put real points on the scoreboard. Short of putting this person in OMB where they can tinker and toil with the various federal budgets and move things around, having a White House Czar for Cyber Security is a roadmap for going nowhere.

As the Commission continues to deliberate its findings, are they prepared to recommend how a White House Cyber Czar will have the powers they need to make the necessary things happen?

If so, are they prepared to detail how this person will overrule other federal departments and agencies to do his/her bidding?

Are they going to detail how this person will be able to do this and be subject to Congressional questioning, oversight and redirection?

There are a lot more questions that will need to be asked, but if history is any indicator, ‘Czars’ from both Democratic and Republican White Houses have a very limited success rate.

As profiled in my previous posting on this subject, Tom Ridge’s tenure as America’s first Homeland Security Czar was filled not so much with the challenges of getting his arms around this new innocuous thing called homeland security but rather the frustrations of not having the authorities or abilities to coordinate among the federal components to make America safer.

After nearly a year in the position, he ended up going to then-White House Chief of Staff Andy Card and the President and essentially said, “Ah guys, this isn’t going to work. We need something with teeth if we’re going to make this homeland security stuff work like we want it to.”

As a result, the White House and the Congress created DHS.

While there are those who are quick to pick on the Department’s various fumbles and on-going challenges, it was specifically designed to be a cross cutting coordinating body to secure our national interests across a range of areas.

Isn’t that what we want in cyber?

Isn’t that why we created a National Infrastructure Protection Plan, Sector Coordinating Councils and other focused infrastructure specific mechanisms to bring people from public and private sectors together?

Don’t we already have in place the authorities at DHS to do this type of work?

Why should we risk repeating the same type of frustration and futility by creating a White House Cyber Czar?

Are we so desperate for titles and showcase positions that we overlook real operational components that work and can build towards success?

I don’t think we have time or luxury to travel the same path as before. Cyber is far more complex and frankly more dangerous. Now the keystroke and the malicious code writing are more dangerous and costly than the finger on the detonator or the incoming hurricane.

I have no doubt about the goals of the Commission or its distinguished membership. Those are shared by everyone in this fight but recommending a proven path of ineffectiveness instead of using and strengthening available mechanisms is not the type of recommendation our new President will need.

We have enough work to do in this area. Why would we want to make it harder?

Tags: Cyber Command, Cyber Security, National Cyber Security Awareness Month, White House
Posted in Cyber Security | Comments

GAO Criticizes DHS Reporting on Nuclear Smuggling Testing

Thursday, October 30th, 2008

A new GAO report titled “Combating Nuclear Smuggling: DHS’s Phase 3 Test Report on Advanced Portal Monitors Does Not Fully Disclose the Limitations of the Test Results” criticizes DHS for its reporting related to testing radiation detection portal monitors, suggesting the reporting could be “potentially misleading.”

GAO’s recommendations include proposing that the Secretary of DHS revise the Phase 3 report to better disclose test results and limitations if it is to be used in any certification decision for ASP acquisition. DHS disagreed with two of GAO’s recommendations but agreed to take action on a third. GAO continues to believe that all of its recommendations need to be implemented.

Read GAO report summary here.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, WMD, Chemical & Biological | Comments

The Election, Homeland Security, and the need for Vigilance

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008

As we approach Election Day, regardless of the outcome, the business community awaits the economic and political change that is sure to come. We are fortunate that our nation’s commercial sector is profoundly diverse and has the ability to adapt to changing environments, while maintaining focus on its core business. While this adaptability will remain paramount, companies must continue to invest in security as a priority despite the environment of economic instability. At a time when many companies are focused on what the change in administration will mean to their economic endeavors, the need for vigilance should remain a primary corporate concern.

In the current financial crisis, companies are being advised to stay focused, cut spending and build reserves to survive the economic uncertainties of the near and likely mid- term. In addition to the economic turmoil, we are witnessing one of the most interesting times in political history, bringing with it tremendous hope and anticipation for leadership to guide our country out of its current state – regardless of who is elected. But it will take time to get this country on the right path again and while the new administration is focused on the enormity of that task, it must take careful steps not to lose sight of other equally important priorities – keeping the nation secure from terrorist attack. Over the past twenty years around the world, terrorist organizations have taken advantage of the disorientation of new and changing political administrations by conducting targeted and at times, spectacular attacks. We need to maintain vigilance against this threat – Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have not diminished in their will, intent to cause great disruption and economic harm, nor capabilities, despite the tremendous and successful efforts of our women and men working around the globe to interdict and disrupt terrorist plans. Our nation is understandably focused on this election because of its importance and its historic nature. Businesses are conserving their scarce financial resources that might be used to better protect infrastructure. The administration and the Congress are working to stem the downward spiral of the economy. Federal agencies, while working hard on the security and law enforcement mission to protect us from attack, are preparing for transition.

This nation is better and bigger than whoever we elect to lead it – we engage in political change every two years and leadership every four with the only constant being change itself. As important as this election is, we cannot give the terrorists the opportunity nor the advantage of the right moment to perpetrate the next attack. We, as citizens and business leaders, cannot lose our focus on protecting what is most dear to us and give them that advantage.

Tags: business community, counter terrorism, Economic instability
Posted in Featured Feed | Comments

The Expansive Regulation of Private Aviation

Tuesday, October 28th, 2008

Earlier this month, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) unveiled its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the regulation of general aviation (GA) aircraft in the U.S. While TSA and DHS have been talking about the need for increased security measures for GA for several years, the reality of the NPRM is hitting the GA community hard (and it should be). To date, TSA regulates but a small portion of the GA community – roughly 650 operators. TSA’s proposed NPRM would increase the regulated community to roughly 10,000 operators. A 65% increase in regulated parties is obviously significant.

While I’m not going to dissect all 260 pages of the NPRM here, let me assure you that several of the proposed measures represent significant operating difficulties for private and business aviation. The GA community might be more willing to implement these measures if TSA had credible evidence that domestic GA represents a threat. To date, this threat does not exist.

Last week I attended an airport security conference and heard an official with TSA’s Office of Intelligence state that there is no threat reporting or significant shifts in intelligence to suggest that GA is a threat at this time. The official went on to state “we don’t see the evidence” to suggest GA is being targeted. I found this admission startling.

As a former TSA official who had responsibility over GA security, I can tell you that the GA community is extremely security conscious and is a very willing partner in implementing sensible security measures. However, there must be a compelling reason (threat information, etc.), other than what TSA cites in their NPRM – “… terrorists may view general aviation aircraft as more vulnerable and thus attractive targets.”

Does GA represent a vulnerability today? The answer is yes. But that’s not the optimal question. The more appropriate question is – does GA represent a high threat target? Fortunately for us an official in TSA’s Office of Intelligence has recently answered this question. Why isn’t the agency listening to him?

Tags: airport security, Aviation and airport security, TSA
Posted in Aviation and airport security, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Management & Administration | Comments

What is real news versus manufactured news?

Monday, October 27th, 2008

Certainly, knowing the news and the situations throughout the world within moments of an event happening has moved from a luxury to a modern day expectation. But reporting the news is a far cry from making the news. Unfortunately that line is being blurred in some of the media reporting we see today.

If there isn’t enough general interest in a news development, why not ask certain leading questions to get newsmakers on the record as supporting or denying certain actions? Once you’ve got the newsmaker on the record, you’ve got news, right? Well, certainly you’ve created a story, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that your story is news. In fact, creating news stories where none really exist can be a true disservice to the public. This is particularly true with regard to stories involving homeland and national security.

We as Americans are proud of our successes and have learned from the failures. We are a information-hungry society; we are not a society in need of help from information gatekeepers who analyze a situation and tell us what we should think about it. We are a people who make decisions on our own.

Our forefathers died so that we could maintain our freedoms. One of those held near is the freedom to choice and each American has that right.

My fear of late is that some in the media are providing biased facts – facts, yes, but facts put within a particular preconceived context to make a predetermined point. While the media often deride those in government service or even politics as “spinning” the news, I think that the media can often be a complicit partner or, worse, the generator of such spin. It’s the old “When did you stop beating your wife?” tactic, that puts the alleged interviewee on the defensive from the beginning – a denial of such a leading question in of itself becomes news. The next day’s headlines read: “Mr. X Denies Beating His Wife!”

How many stories do you read about some reporter crossing the border illegally or smuggling some contraband across the border, with gotcha headlines asserting that our homeland security system is broken? What is rarely reported are all of the other aspects of the nation’s security. Because an XYZ reporter sneaks through Customs doesn’t mean that he would not be caught in one of the many other layers of security put into place to protect the homeland. Does more need to be done? Of course. But we should keep our focus on the most critical needs, and not react to a never-ending cycle of manufactured threats.

Or think of the financial crisis we are now facing. For how many months have the media been reporting that we are in a recession when, factually, we have not officially entered a recession yet. (It requires two quarters of downward growth.) Does that mean we’re not in a bad economic situation? Of course not. But it would be nice to be able to read the media and know that you’re getting unbiased facts so that you can make your own judgments.

Of late it has become harder to determine what actually is news and what are editorials and opinions.

The election coverage is particularly disturbing. We as Americans will go to the polls in 1 week, hopefully with the facts, and thus with our own opinions — and not with just the things we remember by repeated editorials from the press.

Let’s hope all Americans do their own analysis and make up their own minds before they pull the lever. Let’s hope that they mark the ballet as their conscience guides them and leave behind what some are reporting as news when in fact is just opinion.

I’ve seen too many false stories conjured up by political spinmeisters inside and outside of the media when it comes to homeland security. I’ve seen calls of “politicization” whenever our security alerts have been raised – when I’ve seen some of the intelligence that has led to such decisions. The media aren’t serving the public when they engage in such fearmongering. And having seen such reporting, it makes me question what I’ve been reading in the media about the candidates for president. It makes me that much more determined to get the facts for myself and try to avoid the biases of the gatekeepers of public information.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Law Enforcement | Comments

Tactical Realities Must Drive Law Enforcement Cross-Border Engagements

Sunday, October 26th, 2008

The pressures on the Southern Border continue to grow, with South Texas authorities announcing a willingness to permit cross border engagements by the members of local law enforcement. The Southern Border is rapidly becoming the Third Front for the United States, with officers regularly being challenged or engaged in cross-border exchanges of gunfire.

There are a number of reasons why local law enforcement officers shouldn’t engage in this kind of activity; the two most compelling are the risk of escalating the situation and the need to respect international boundaries. However, every member of law enforcement must be allowed to protect themselves, regardless of the theoretical (rather than physical) boundary. More significantly, quelling trouble on the Mexican side of the border is clearly a responsibility for the Mexican authorities, who are not achieving their desired results.

We must look to Congress, indeed to the Senate, to ascertain the source of some problems with supporting Mexico’s attempt to quell the border unrest. You may recall that Senator Leahy and associates decided that an increased prosecution rate against Mexican soldiers was an important component of the conditions supporting the latest funding. This is another fantastic example of the ‘law of unintended consequences’ as applied by Congress – remember Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? By putting in the restrictions around increased human rights investigations, these measures clearly alienate everyone involved. Rather than incentivizing the Mexicans by saying to them, “This is the way to deal with local populations” and using a developed counter-insurgency model that pulls support away from local populations through investment and treating them like humans, this approach essential says “You run a shoddy operation and need us to spank you like children.” That may not have been the Senate’s intention, but that is certainly the message.

I think that Senator Leahy, his staff and Senate colleagues need to take a deep breath and start wondering what life would look like from the other side of the bench – the United States remains in great shape to lead many countries away from human rights abuses, but the advocacy of human rights must come from leadership and not spanking . To be honest, this must happen if for no other reason than the fact that the United States has lost the moral authority globally to take that position any more – we must deal with the situation that is, not the situation they want it to be.

Senator Leahy’s objectives have always been completely honorable: to ensure that the US does not endorse nor tolerate human rights abuses, war crimes, etc. The problem is that this policy sees the world as the Senator wants it to be, not the way it is. People are not binary; they are not, by their nature, good or bad. Their decisions are often driven by context – what is appropriate now, what is tolerated now; the process of creating accountable and effective policing capabilities, accountable and effective organs of state in developing nations is about incentivizing behavior, of explaining to those being supported, those being trained, how new behaviors will enable them to better achieve their desired ends. As ever, I am happy to host Senator Leahy and his staff at any training or consulting event anywhere in the globe where my firm supports the US Government’s political imperative, and bring to light the unintended consequences that the current legislation and policies are having.

Support to other countries is about achieving diplomatic and political intent, and the training agenda must support those goals. Actions such as the Leahy Amendment create a significant hurdle to maintaining a ‘clean hands’ policy of support and to preventing a media backlash about training terrorists and former war criminals – which is laudable aim. However, the question has to be, at what cost do we pay to keep those hands clean? If the US is prevented from leading countries to good behavior, and to closer ties than before, is that worth the current regulations? This question is not rhetorical, but must be one of the first issues addressed by the new administration.

Tags: Border Security
Posted in Border Security | Comments

Secure Flight Program is Ready to Fly

Friday, October 24th, 2008

DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, with the support of TSA Administrator Kip Hawley, announced this week that the Secure Flight program is finally moving forward. They acknowledged that it has taken a very long time to get this passenger name checking system ready to fly but now feel confident that the time taken has not been wasted. Hawley was particularly proud of the fact that the regulatory red tape did not kill the program, and TSA was still given plenty of time to test (and stress test) the technology that will do the name checking. He gave lots of credit to the Screening Coordination Office headed by Kathy Kraninger.

In a nutshell, Secure Flight will shift the burden of pre-flight passenger name vetting from the commercial airlines directly to DHS. It was one of the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission and when fully implemented, it will make the passenger’s experience with TSA a more efficient process. The final rule appears to have properly addressed all of the legitimate privacy concerns, even if there will still be a few whiners who will try to make up hypothetical privacy concerns. It appears the TSA’s recommended seven-seven-ninety nine retention policy is reasonable and appropriate to address what is universally recognized as a serious on-going threat to the aviation system.

Of course, Secure Flight will be no “silver bullet” solution to airline security. But it is one of many layers that DHS will implement in an effort to make the aviation system as safe as humanly possible.

In the new scheme, TSA and CBP will work together to vet names on domestic as well as international flights (currently two separate programs which eventually will be combined for greater efficiency) and eliminate many of the complaints with the operation of the “no-fly” and the “selectee” lists. Passengers will have to provide their full name, date of birth and gender. TSA has also recognized that airline reservation systems are not easily altered and has set a more reasonable 270 day implementation schedule than it had originally proposed. Indeed, after reviewing the myriad of comments it received in response to the proposed rule it issued over a year ago, TSA dropped many of the other requirements that had raised the hackles of some key stakeholders. It appears that TSA has taken the time to “get it right” first.

That is not to suggest that all of the problems that passengers and air carriers will encounter have been addressed in the implementation of Secure Flight. Air carriers have been handed an unfunded mandate by DHS. International air carriers have a legitimate issue in noting that some reservation systems are different from departure control systems in many foreign countries. TSA may have to take another look at this issue. Additionally, it remains to be seen how TSA addresses the issue of weather-related overflights, i.e. where a Canadian flight to the UK gets routed over US territory due to weather issues. The Final Rule provides some flexibility, but carriers have reason to be concerned because one person’s discretion can quickly become another person’s inflexibility.

DHS and TSA should be commended for finally getting the Secure Flight rule out the door and for resisting congressional meddling to force an unreasonable implementation schedule. Now let’s hope that it works as intended.

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

Making the Business Case for Risk Management

Thursday, October 23rd, 2008

Last week in a speech to the Wharton School, Secretary Chertoff made the business case for the Department of Homeland Security’s approach to risk management that focuses on helping the private sector help itself. From my perspective, it is the only sustainable approach, and its success depends on the investment community’s appreciation of the value of security. I believe that a central element of the winning business case is the relationship between world-class risk management and enterprise value protection – a relationship that is only appreciated today in the private sector by companies that own some of the world’s most valuable brands.

The Secretary laid the foundation with the fundamental business principles of cost, risk, and return. The Department, the federal and state governments and the private sector cannot afford to invest the money it would take to remediate all the vulnerabilities of our national infrastructure – nor should they. Rather, intelligent decisions must be made about what to protect, at what level to protect it and from what threats. In other words, we must intelligently decide which risks we are willing to take, which we cannot and most importantly – who has the responsibility to reduce the risks. Managing risk in uncertain world in which threats come from weather, crime, terrorist attacks, and economic turmoil, is a daunting task. About the only environmental event we can predict with any certainty is the weather. As the Secretary points out – historical weather patterns should influence real-estate development, and risky building behavior in locations that are prone to destruction from severe weather shouldn’t be rewarded with financial relief from the government any more than poorly managed companies deserve to be rescued for their bad judgment and bad management.

Risk management employs systems that apply best practices to identify and remediate vulnerabilities; metrics to measure compliance and quality of efforts; methods to ensure transparency; and mechanisms to transfer risk from the protected systems. Most importantly, managing risk depends on good information (transparency) about the risks involved; the extent of the vulnerabilities and corresponding remediation requirements; the measurements to ensure that best practices are in use; and details about the particular threat – frequency of occurrence, timing, method and targets. The government and the private sector have domain over the “targets”, which represent its greatest opportunity to identify and transfer risk can be found. Information about frequency, timing, method, etc. is often elusive, incomplete and uncredible, making the job of sustainably and effectively managing risk even more uncertain. The Department is evolving its risk management strategy and as the Secretary states, “The greatest benefit that we can bring to the free market is transparency. If we have confidence that we know who we’re dealing with and what we’re getting, so that we can make a risk-based judgment, then in fact commerce can occur and we can make good decisions about how we spend our resources, but that again requires government to step in and make sure that we have that transparency in much the same way that government makes sure that people don’t violate their contracts.”

This is encouraging – the business case for Homeland Security has yet to be made with the private sector because investment for security is generally viewed as a cost rather than an investment to drive revenue or enterprise value. The key is to associate security investments with bringing value to the company beyond protecting bricks and mortar and networks – all are valuable assets, but not necessarily critical to a company’s financial health. Security, first and foremost, protects reputation.

A company owns its brand, but its stakeholders, including investors, own the company’s reputation. It often takes years and extensive resources to build a reputation that customers trust and investors recognize. It takes one replicated story on the web to destroy it. Lead paint in toys, tainted medications, clothes made by eight -year old children, an attack on a major hotel – all are recent examples of disastrous shocks to corporate reputation, revenue and market share that are also potential national security vulnerabilities. Threats to the reputation of a company can come from bad judgment of a corporate officer, criminal behavior by a global business partner, a terrorist attack on facilities, or extortion involving food products. Reputational threats reduce the value of specific corporate assets that are intangible. Efforts to protect reputation include good security as well as other good management practices. The measurement of those efforts that correlate protecting corporate value will also contribute to national security. If a major financial institution is taking appropriate steps to mitigate threats to its transactions from hacking, network outages, and the like, in order to maintain consumer confidence and to remain in the marketplace during a network attack – then it is contributing to the national security as well.

We need to encourage and reward companies to share information in a way that increases transparency without burdening them with over regulation that encourages compliance with minimum standards rather than standards that will ultimately address a dynamic threat evolving in opaque networks and systems that make managing risk an even more difficult task. The government must equally commit to sharing what it knows about threats and emerging challenges to the security of business to allow companies to know what to invest in. Companies understand risk management and how to invest to maintain the financial health of their businesses. The government needs to continue to find ways to contribute to the business sector’s ability to make the appropriate investments against the threats that the business community should manage. We’ve made a lot of progress since September 11th and we clearly have a lot more to go – recognizing that we can’t protect everything is the first step in bringing reality to a business world facing increasingly challenging economic times.

Tags: risk management
Posted in Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector | Comments

Who Wants the Toughest Job in America?

Thursday, October 23rd, 2008

With Election Day approaching, the parlor game of who might get ‘the big jobs’ of the new President’s Cabinet is underway. As a longstanding Washington tradition (thankfully only celebrated every four years), there are lots of names being floated around to fill these big chairs. There has already been coverage by Politico, CQ as well as other media outlets on some of the prospective names but none of these positions has as much personal and professional interest for me as who will selected as the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Every job in the Cabinet is tough and often thankless but none of them has a bigger challenge (or bull’s-eye on their chest) than DHS Secretary. In this post, it is ‘your job’ to secure the borders and coastline as well as all of the planes, trains and cargo moving around the country (and world); curtail illegal immigration; keep information flowing to state, local and tribal governments; provide direction on critical infrastructure protection; offer leadership, communications and management in various emergencies; and a whole lot more. In short, the DHS Secretary is the one person charged to make sure we have ‘good days’ but has to always be ready to act on the ‘bad ones’ too.

If that job description was not hard enough, whatever this person does in this position will be second-guessed, mocked and sneered at. They will also be given competing and confusing directions and find themselves unappreciated, unacknowledged and over-extended. But enough about Congressional ‘oversight.’

There are also the media, state, local and tribal government interests, the private sector, NGOs, late-night comics and citizenry that will be piling on as well.

With all of these factors in mind, who has the qualifications to be successful in this job? More importantly, who in their right mind would take it?

We’ve only got two models to reference for the job – Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff. Both secretaries are very different in their respective personalities, backgrounds and approaches. Both experienced challenges in office far beyond their control and took the hits along the way. They also had their successes which unfortunately will never get heralded the way they should.

In looking at the tenure of these two distinguished public servants it allowed me to do some looking of my own of people that I think should be on the short list for the ‘toughest job in America.’

What follows is a list of several people who would do a great job as DHS Secretary. In the spirit of ‘bipartisanship’ that both Presidential candidates are talking about in the make-up of their prospective Cabinets, I have listed these persons without reference to them being prospective Obama picks or McCain picks.

In my mind, homeland security is not a Republican job or a Democrat job. It is an American job, and I believe that Ridge and Chertoff have conducted themselves in just that manner. I’m more than hopeful that their 2009 successor will do the same.

The list is not ranked in any particular order. I also know that many of these names will never get any type of consideration for a variety of reasons. In offering them up in this format, I believe they offer a President-Elect and his personnel team models to consider when making their choice. I also am not campaigning for any of these persons to get this job, nor has anyone of them or their surrogates encouraged me to include them. These names are simply my two cents on a number of distinguished Americans who I believe have the background and skills to succeed in the toughest job in America.

William Bratton – Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)

It’s tough to be police chief in any jurisdiction but big city police chiefs have it toughest of all. That’s what makes Chief Bratton so impressive. He’s been police chief in the biggest cities in America – Boston, New York City and Los Angeles – and has been successful in each one of them. As one of innovators to apply community policing techniques to urban environments; creating CompStat (the internationally acclaimed model used by police departments to measure success); and developing new public safety and communications strategies to better connect citizens with law enforcement, Chief Bratton is known around the world as one of its top cops. His track record and honors prove it too. Can you name any other cop recognized by Playboy magazine as “America’s Smartest Cop?”

Ray Kelly – Commissioner, New York City Police Department (NYPD)

Commissioner Kelly leads one of the largest ‘armies and intelligence networks in the world. While there are many who may not see the NYPD as an army or intelligence network (they are), New York City has by far one of the most expansive, best trained and well-networked law enforcement agencies in the world. Taking over the NYPD in the months following 9/11, Kelly inherited the responsibilities of safeguarding the number one terrorist target in the world. The retired USMC Col previously served as NYPD Commissioner in the early 1990s and as Commissioner of the US Customs Service and Under Secretary at the Treasury Dept supervising the US Secret Service, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) [which now all belongs to DHS] during the Clinton Administration. Since DHS’ creation, the Commissioner has not been shy about pointing to DHS and others the need for improving information sharing needs and how resources need to be allocated to places facing the greatest threats and vulnerabilities. It just so happens that New York City is always at the top of his list.

Thomas Menino, Mayor of Boston, MA

If big city police chiefs have it tough, the mayors may have it even tougher From public safety, taxes, transportation, garbage collection, etc., they have responsibility over all city operations. Homeland security is one issue many of them never imagined having to contend with, but 9/11 changed that forever. In his fourth term as Boston’s Mayor, Tom Menino has been one of the most practical and articulate leaders on homeland security. Leading a large city that has its share of targets, as well as all-hazard environments, Mayor Menino has helped make Boston a model for other cities to emulate. From a planning perspective, his stewardship of the first political convention after 9/11 (the July 2004 Democratic Party Convention), along with that of NYC’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg (the August 2004 Republican National Convention), laid the groundwork by which every political convention host city (2008’s Denver & Minneapolis Conventions) has and will follow.

Lee Baca – Sheriff County of Los Angeles, California

Sheriff Baca leads the largest Sheriff’s Department in the US providing law enforcement to over 4 million people on a daily basis. Given the geographic areas he serves (Los Angeles, Orange County, etc.) as well as the specific interests his department serves (regional transit systems, tourist areas, higher education facilities, unincorporated communities, etc.), Sheriff Baca has had a full plate in managing a very tough beat. He has also helped build one of the most impressive information sharing networks in the US – the Joint Regional Intelligence Center (LA-RTTAC). With an area prone to a number of natural hazards/events, millions of people, lots of overburdened infrastructures, even tighter budgets and ever-present threat streams, he has been able to succeed in multiple ways and keep his force of 18,000 people at the ready.

Joseph Bruno, Commissioner, Office of Emergency Management, New York City, NY

Anyone who has ever been to NYC knows that everything is on a bigger scale. The same is true of the city’s emergency management. While it may be the smallest sibling in the NYC public safety family (when compared to its older brothers the NYPD and FDNY), the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) under Commissioner Joe Bruno has proven to be one of the city’s and nation’s best advocates for planning, emergency coordination, information sharing and more. The challenges of operating in an environment where sharp elbows, ‘turf preservation,’ tough politics and tougher personalities are part of the daily routine have not stopped Bruno or his staff from making a tremendous difference. Like his FDNY and NYPD leadership counterparts, Bruno knows it is not a question of ‘if’ NYC is hit by terrorists or some other event (blackout, pandemic flu, etc.) but rather ‘when.’ He is not waiting for ‘when’ to plan – he’s been doing it non-stop since taking over OEM in 2004. As a former Commissioner of the FDNY, Civil Court Judge and New York Supreme Court Justice, he has been able to survive and succeed on the biggest stage the world has to offer. Along the way, he has built new information sharing networks and preparedness practices that speak to every citizen in the multitude of languages that make NYC the ultimate melting pot.

Mitt Romney, former Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts; former President & CEO, Salt Lake City Olympics Organizing Committee

Dismissing Mitt Romney as a potential DHS Secretary given his lack of success on the Presidential campaign trail ignores an impressive track record of both public and private sector accomplishment. From rescuing the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City from financial and management ruin; operating the first worldwide event following the 9/11 attacks and US/NATO invasion of Afghanistan; running a state government where he was politically outnumbered; and running a successful business, Romney has been able to deliver in some of the most formidable environments. After DHS was created, he was one of the most proactive governors in engaging the new Department in the formation of its strategies, programs and policies with state governments. Given that every type of emergency event occurs in a state and not Washington DC as some might think, Romney was proactive in trying to define the mechanisms that would work best for states in working with DHS. As a one-time member of DHS’ Homeland Security Advisory Council, then-Gov. Romney was one of the people DHS Secs. Ridge and Sec. Chertoff could turn to for constructive advice without playing to overt shrill partisanship that then-Mayor of Baltimore, and current Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley is often apt to do.

Joe Lieberman – US Senator, Chairman of the Senate’s Homeland Security & Government Affairs Committee

In many ways, Sen. Lieberman is the father of DHS, having been one of the primary drivers for its creation. The four-term US Senator from Connecticut has been a forceful voice on multiple international and national security matters and is not shy on what he thinks will work and what won’t. The former Democrat, now Independent, has worked closely with his counterpart, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, to help shape DHS and its mission. Their almost unprecedented partnership (and civility) in providing oversight of DHS is in stark comparison to that of the US House on a number of matters. As a result, the voices that Lieberman (and Collins) offer on DHS matters are probably better heard (and more respected) than those offered by their US House of Representatives counterparts.

Thad Allen, Commandant, US Coast Guard (USCG)

If you asked most Americans what military services we have in this country, most would easily respond, “Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines” overlooking our smallest and one of the oldest military branches. That forgetfulness changed following Hurricane Katrina. Out of all of the failures and debacles that occurred, the men and women of the US Coast Guard came into the full view of an angry and frustrated nation as they executed their respective operations with sweeping success. Leading the way through Katrina’s aftermath was then USCG Chief of Staff, Vice Admiral Thad Allen. As a result, Allen was quickly tapped by DHS Sec. Chertoff to replace then-FEMA Administrator, Mike Brown to be the Principal Federal Official overseeing the enormous response efforts underway on the Gulf Coast. Allen’s demeanor and leadership brought about a tremendous sea change to everything associated with Katrina and for many on the Gulf Coast and the nation; he became one of the few heroes of a very painful chapter of American history. While Allen may have nationally distinguished himself during Katrina, his leadership style of making tough choices and course corrections were obvious again when he had to make some painful and public choices with the USCG’s embattled Deepwater Program. He got the facts, identified remedying steps, put them in place and had the courage to publicly face the program’s harshest critics (Congress, the media, GAO, etc.). When he calls upon his vast network of people, they are always ready, willing and able to make things happen. It was something I got to witness firsthand during my own DHS deployment during Katrina. The Commandant is a game changer for any situation in which he is involved.

Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida

There can be no doubt about the tremendous ‘Bush fatigue’ that the nation has but if you are looking at performance records on executive leadership in emergency management, Jeb Bush’s name has to be on a list of candidates for the top DHS job. Probably more than any of his other state executive counterparts, the former Florida Governor did more to elevate emergency management’ on a state-executive level than any other. Every disaster that occurred during his term in office, whether it was the huge wildfires ravaging the Everglades and surrounding areas; hurricanes; blackouts or other emergencies, he was involved front and center and made sure things happened. It certainly helps your executive performance when you have people as good as Craig Fugate, Florida’s Director of Emergency Management on your team (who would make an exceptional FEMA Administrator) and get as much operational experience as Florida does year round, but former Gov. Bush put himself out front and center in what can only be called an always hostile environment. He is a leadership model for state executives facing heavy fire, in contrast to former Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco who showed how not to perform as she did during Katrina.

Haley Barbour, Governor of Mississippi

While he has long been known as one of the most successful Washington operators (political party leader, media savvy, powerful lobbyist, etc.) Gov. Barbour’s most distinguished days are born from national tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. As Governor of the state that was ‘Ground Zero’ to Katrina’s wrath (and laid waste to any area nearly the size of Great Britain), Barbour showed what the word ‘leadership’ meant during some of our country’s most humiliating days. While the political follies and soap opera drama between the leaders in Baton Rouge and New Orleans unfolded, Barbour and his team went to work with regional leaders, elected officials and other public and private sector interests to begin rebuilding the Magnolia State. His mantra was simple – the recovery would be led by people from Mississippi, with Mississippi products and services, with inputs from the citizens and businesses of Mississippi that would create new Mississippi jobs. His understanding of how to make government agencies and networks work (and how to put them to use) allowed the response and recovery operations to begin much faster than they did in Louisiana. The results speak for themselves as Mississippi’s recovery from Katrina (while still a daunting process) is moving forward at an impressive pace.

Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona

As a border state governor, Janet Napolitano probably understands the costs, impacts and complexity of immigration and security better than most elected or appointed officials. The former US Attorney and former State Attorney General was one of the first elected leaders to call for the deployment of the National Guard to improve border security. She has also worked to build effective networks amongst Arizona’s state, local and tribal governments. Assembling such diverse interests is an always delicate task, but she has shown the necessary skills to bring multiple parties together to get the job done. It’s just one of the reasons she been recognized by Time Magazine as one of America’s Top Governors.

Frances “Fran” Fragos Townsend, former Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, The White House

While there are many that would quickly discount Fran Townsend because of her years of service to the current Bush White House, there is a lot that she offers to the future of homeland security given her significant involvement with its past foundations. A former Assistant US Attorney and US Justice Department official with significant experience with national and international security, FISA, organized crime prosecutions, FISA, surveillance and more, Ms. Townsend’s resume is one of the most impressive ones anyone could ever peruse. Labeling her as some political hack that can survive (and be elevated) in different Administrations (Clinton to Bush) would be vastly underestimating her skills and ability to perform and succeed in the most challenging environments. Besides, how many people do you know who have met face to face with Libyan dictator Moammar Ghadhafi in a tent outside of Tripoli to talk about resuming diplomatic relations with the US and the rest of the world? She has and has the story to prove it.

Henry Cuellar, US Representative, State of Texas, 28th District

He may only be completing his second term in the US House of Representatives, but Rep. Henry Cuellar has put together an impressive record on homeland security issues. As Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness & Response, he has offered a civil, centrist and proactive voice on some of the most contentious homeland issues (interoperability, grants, emergency management processes, etc.). As a result, he gets high marks from both sides of the political aisle as well as the range of public and private sector members. That is not the only distinguishing factor about him. As the most ‘degreed’ Member of the US House (he has five advanced degrees and third degree black belt in Karate), he has shown his ability to listen to multiple and diverse interests and hear them out before putting forward effective strategies to address what are very complex interests. His July 2008 keynote remarks at a Homeland Defense Journal program on the future of homeland security and DHS showed the depth of his understanding and the strategic approaches he sees necessary for the success of the incoming Administration. There are not many House Members who have demonstrated such insight or leadership.

Jim Langevin, US Representative, State of Rhode Island, 2nd District

No one in the US Congress understands the threats and vulnerabilities associated with cyber security better than Rep. Jim Langevin. As one of, if not the, greatest threats and vulnerabilities our nation faces, we need someone with Rep. Langevin’s expertise to address cyber security. He has been not just vocal on cyber security; he has been the marshalling force within the US Congress to get ‘moving’ on this issue. His command of the issue as well as recognition that government can not solve this problem alone has been impressive to watch. He has extended the collaborative and proactive approach he has had with cyber to other homeland areas as well. His leadership, comments and support of research in strategic homeland areas and emerging technology deployments (radiation monitoring at ports and other critical infrastructure points) are indicative of his leadership approach in these areas. So are the remarks that he offered at the same July 2008 Homeland Defense Journal program where Rep. Cuellar spoke.

Dan Lungren, US Representative, State of California, 3rd District

When you are from California, you have to deal with everything in homeland security and it would seem that Rep. Lungren’s career reflects that fact. From illegal immigration, emergency communications and response, national and international security matters, critical infrastructure protection, public safety and so much more, Rep. Lungren has played an active role on all of these issues as a Member of Congress as well as the California’s State Treasurer and Attorney General and as an university educator and radio talk-show host. He has been able to succeed in some of the most challenging environments along the way too. While he has encountered election defeats at varying points in his career, he has not let that stop him from being a force promoting effective strategies to ensure safe and successful commerce and security.

Jane Harman, US Representative, State of California, 36th District

While she may not chair the House Intelligence Committee (thanks to some petty maneuvering by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi), there can be no doubt that when Rep. Harman speaks on counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence matters, people listen. One of House’s most formidable (and knowledgeable) Members on intelligence and security matters, Rep. Harman has not been shy in challenging the Bush Administration, DHS or her own Congressional colleagues about what they are getting right and what they are getting wrong on these issues. Her name is often mentioned as a potential nominee for the top job at the recently established Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) or the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) but that overlooks all of her leadership in pushing for improved information sharing networks for federal, state, local, tribal and private sector members. Using her current post on the House Homeland Security Committee as Chair of the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, she has regularly challenged DHS leaders and intelligence officials regardless of their stature or accomplishments to do more to connect and communicate with people in the field who can prevent, adjust and respond to threats as they appear.

‘Wild Card’ Selection

The ‘Wild Card’ is the person who may not be as publicly known or recognizable as some of the persons that I have already mentioned in this posting. Sec. Chertoff, while a known quantity in many legal circles, was not well-known beyond them. His selection after the failed nomination of Bernie Kerik was a surprise to many in Washington and around the country, but in the end, it ended up being a great pick for the Department. The Wild Card is in every deck of an Administration’s personnel vetting process and that may hold true again when a new President is elected on November 4th. The challenge for the Wild Card, particularly if they are a not widely known individual, is conveying the command, capacity and character to withstand the incredible scrutiny and demand the DHS position holds. More well-known persons don’t carry that type of burden as pundits, the media and other colleagues can look over their more public accomplishments. As lesser known persons, they have the challenge of conveying the wisdom of the President who has selected them to serve; the character to work with a Congress that will scrutinize them relentlessly; the fortitude to handle the crush of media and numerous interests; and the confidence and ability to lead the vast Department and the larger homeland security community on not just on the ‘good days’ but the ‘bad ones’ they will most certainly face.

Regardless of whatever skill set and background a prospective nominee brings, the position of DHS Secretary is undoubtedly one of the hardest jobs on the planet. With the right supporting cast (much of which is in place at DHS and elsewhere around the US), it can be done. There will still be leadership failures, stumbles and missteps along the way. Secretaries Ridge and Chertoff experienced that but they have also demonstrated their own leadership skills that have enabled DHS’ maturing and successes and done so with a great deal of integrity and honor in the process. That’s a hallmark of any successful Cabinet Secretary.

As to the future DHS leadership, I’m looking forward to where the Wild Card or one of the other folks I mentioned will take us in 2009 and beyond. They’ve got my support and that of a lot of other folks I know too. They’re going to need it. Failure is not an option.

Tags: cabinet picks, DHS, Secretary
Posted in Congress, Politics & PR | Comments

DHS Confirms the Infeasibility of 2012 Cargo Deadline

Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

Yesterday, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff acknowledged the obvious when he announced that DHS will not meet the 2012 deadline set by Congress to scan every cargo container that comes in to U.S. ports. For those of us involved in the industry, the announcement is hardly surprising. There are very few security professionals who would argue that implementing the cargo scanning mandate is possible at all and even fewer who can reasonably say that the 2012 deadline can be met. The nearly universal agreement among experts about the deadline’s infeasibility is based on a number of factors: the immense and still unquantified costs of implementation; the resistance being exerted by our international trading partners; and the countless unknowns about how drastically the mandate will slow trade – a risk that has become even more dangerous amid the economic woes of the past several weeks.

Yet despite these glaring obstacles, there seems to be an almost surreal political debate occurring on Capitol Hill as many of Congress’s top leaders – including Speaker Nancy Pelosi – continue to support the cargo scanning mandate to the point of chastising DHS for failing to meet its unrealistic 2012 deadline. Rep. Bennie Thompson, the Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, has already responded to Chertoff’s announcement by reiterating his primary talking point on the issue that a 100% approach to cargo scanning is the only way to ensure the nation’s safety. It will be interesting to see how Rep. Thompson’s colleagues respond to DHS’ announcement, and whether they finally begin to acknowledge what most security experts have already concluded: that 100% cargo scanning will likely do exactly the opposite of making our nation safer.

Tags: cargo security, Supply Chain Security
Posted in Supply Chain Security | Comments

Raising the Stakes in Immigration Enforcement Poker

Monday, October 20th, 2008

While much attention has been paid to the imploding U.S. economy, DHS’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) applied its own version of inflation to the ‘cost of the doing business’ by seeking for the first time the debarment of seven companies from federal contracting opportunities. The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) provide that contractors may be considered for debarment if they have been found to have either knowingly hire an unauthorized worker or to continue to employ an alien who is or becomes unauthorized. According to ICE, the seven companies were targeted for federal contract debarment because each has been found to be unlawfully employing persons without employment authorization. This debarment action is the latest of many enforcement approaches adopted by ICE to crack down on employers who hire undocumented workers – all with the stated goal of increasing the cost of such illegal practices. This latest action, coupled with an increase in the number of worksite raids and criminal prosecutions of undocumented employees and employers again, once again raises the stakes faced by employers in an ongoing game of immigration enforcement poker.

Under the announced debarment penalty, the seven listed companies would:

Be entered into the Excluded Parties List System, a federal web-based system listing parties suspended from, debarred, proposed for debarment or otherwise excluded from receiving federal contracts, certain subcontracts, and other federal financial assistance;
Immediately be prohibited from maintaining any federal government contract(s); and
Immediately be prohibited from competing for any federal government contract(s).

For many federal contractors, the impact of no longer being able to maintain and compete for federal contracts on account of hiring undocumented workers is the equivalent of a kiss of death. It should be noted that the debarment does not solely apply to DHS or ICE contracts, but rather applies to all federal contract opportunities including those at the Department of Defense, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Service contract opportunities. Federal contractors should realize that they no longer are in the situation of figuring out how many $250 civil penalty fines they will be paying per undocumented employee. In fact, ICE is eschewing the historically ineffective civil fines in favor of seeking the more dramatic criminal indictment, and now federal contract debarment, to deter employers from hiring undocumented workers. This and the other ICE enforcement actions against employers are being performed under pre-existing regulation and legal authorities that in the past laid dormant while the nation grappled with its immigration policies. Following Congress’ failure to enact immigration reform, DHS initiated an aggressive program to enforce all immigration laws, including those applicable to the employers. As far as DHS is concerned, no stone is being left un-turned when it comes to cracking down on unscrupulous employers and enhancing employee verification.

What does this mean for federal contractors and those seeking government contract opportunities? Well, for starters, those simple Form I-9s that are filled out by each new employee hire and the overworked HR officers who are responsible for screening and verifying all your new employee hires – their significance has dramatically increased. Give short shrift to them and you may be explaining to investors why your federal contract revenues have just disappeared with no prospect of returning. You may also face explaining to employees why the company is closing. In my opinion, the significant risks and penalties mandate that federal contractors give as much attention to their employee verification processes as they currently do to Sarbanes-Oxley requirements. The reality is that the penalties and costs to defend against sanctions for insufficient employee verification protocols are the same if not greater than those faced under Sarbanes-Oxley. Unlike Sarbanes-Oxley, however, the damage is incurred even if the company and its officials are not found culpable.

Despite the mounting ICE trophies, I continue to encounter national companies whose HR offices are not fully in control of the I-9 employee verification process, lack uniform protocols, and in dire need of training. This is a costly disaster waiting to happen. The good news is that they are heeding the warnings and taking steps to address these shortcomings and build up their good faith defenses. Now, ICE hopes that federal contractors take notice of their new position in the cross-hairs of immigration enforcement.

Tags: Immigration & Visa Policy
Posted in Featured Feed, Immigration & Visa Policy | Comments

A Review of The Closing of the American Border, by Edward Alden

Friday, October 17th, 2008

A Review of “The Closing of the American Border: Terrorism, Immigration, and Security Since 9/11,” by Edward Alden

By Randy Beardsworth and Theophilos Gemelas

Note: This review was originally published in Homeland Security Affairs; The Journal of the Naval Postgraduate School Center for Homeland Defense and Security

No one should be surprised with the current state of the U.S. border security system. After all, it reflects a neglected effort on behalf of the U.S. government to manage its border prior to the events of September 11, 2001 and scrambled efforts to patch programs and implement new ones shortly after 9/11. It shows what can happen if a government does not have a vision for the future. It shows how the government may make it harder for terrorists to enter the country but makes it harder for everyone else as well. It reflects a government that desperately needs to come to some decision about the kind of border security system that is necessary to help it manage the overall harmful risks to the nation’s security. And it reflects the tensions between government efforts to enforce immigration laws and implement counterterrorism policies, two very distinct efforts that need to be separated.

These conclusions are fairly evident in The Closing of the American Border: Terrorism, Immigration, and Security Since 9/11, by Edward Alden, Bernard L. Schwartz senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. A journalist by profession (Alden has held several positions at the Financial Times), Alden has captured all of the issues pertaining to border security through interviews with senior government officials and immigrants that have fallen victim to an imperfect and at times dysfunctional system. Alden nicely weaves together debates among the departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security on how to secure borders, effect visa policy, and use immigration law to counter terrorists. The book goes on to expose shortcomings in the enforcement efforts of the old Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and highlights the relationship between the U.S. and Canada and the U.S. and Mexico on border control and trade. Amazingly, it is the first book, since that of the 9/11 Commission, to attempt to examine comprehensively the set of issues and problems confronting border security.

Alden brilliantly frames for the reader the struggles between what he calls the “Technocrats” (Chapter 3) and the “Cops” (Chapter 4). The technocrats are those who champion the position of taking a risk management approach to border security, adhering to constitutional principles and the rule of law, and the appropriate use of technology, information, and intelligence for security purposes so that restrictions or controls do not impede the free flow of people and commerce. These advocates included Tom Ridge, the first assistant to the president for homeland security and the first secretary of homeland security. They also included Admiral James Loy, former deputy secretary of homeland security, and to some extent former Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert Bonner.

On the other side of the debate are the “Cops.” The cops are those who champion the use of laws and regulations to potentially head off any terrorist attacks. They include former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who advocated for aggressive use of immigration laws. For Ashcroft, “If a terrorism suspect committed any legal infraction at all, regardless how minor, we would apprehend and charge him” (p. 81). Ashcroft and others interpreted immigration law not as a constitutional protection but as a regulation that allowed the government to charge someone suspected of an immigration violation and detain him or her without charge almost indefinitely without bond. They believed detentions would “help to prevent another attack,” help to intimidate a detainee into “cooperating with the government,” or cause a disruption in terrorist plans (p. 84).

But other cops, most notably Jim Ziglar, former commissioner of the INS, pushed back against Ashcroft. They believed that “the aggressive and often indiscriminate use of immigration laws and visa rules to keep out foreigners or to punish others on technical violations was self-defeating” because it would alienate those groups willing to cooperate, anger foreign governments, and waste government resources by trying to find the “needle in a haystack” (p. 88). In the end, as Alden notes, the cops’ approach blurs the distinction between anti-terrorism enforcement and immigration enforcement.

For those readers who follow bureaucratic politics, dynamics in organizational change, the recent history of immigration and visa policy, or the experiences of immigrants and ordinary people traveling to or hoping to work in the United States, Alden’s book will not disappoint. Alden gets the insider debates just about right. His painstaking interviews and ability to create a broad mosaic from those interviews is uncanny. The Closing of the American Border is a superb text for policy makers who must wrestle with the challenges of border security and immigration policy.

If there are shortcomings in the book, they might be with the limited conclusions offered by the author. After reading this book, one properly cries out for policy prescriptions that start with the need to create a vision for border security. The author shares with us the attempt by Tom Ridge and Richard Falkenrath, former deputy homeland security advisor to the president, to craft a vision for the future, called “The Border of the Future” (p. 137). It was a vision that embraced a “risk-based decision making” (pp. 138-139) approach, distinguished between “high-risk and low-risk traffic” (p. 139) based on intelligence, cooperation with other governments in developing standards and procedures, intelligence information organized and managed to get to front-line inspectors in a timely manner, and constant threat assessments.

As discussed in Alden’s book, we know that vision was criticized and rejected by the Cabinet. But this is where the president should have taken a leadership role to push his administration to think through a border security strategy rather than just haphazardly realigning all of the border security and relevant law enforcement agencies into the Department of Homeland Security with responsibilities for disaster planning and response, protecting the president through the Secret Service and other missions. Alden’s book should be required reading for U.S. presidential candidates and those eventually charged with executing the border security enterprise. Alden shows what happened without a common vision. Alden’s book can show the next president and his team that they have an opportunity to learn from history and craft a common vision.

Randy Beardsworth is a principal at Olive, Edwards and Cooper and former assistant secretary of strategic plans at the Department of Homeland Security. Theophilos Gemelas is senior advisor to the director at the Homeland Security Institute, a federally-funded research and development center and former associate director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. They can be reached at rbeardsworth@olive-edwards.com and tgemelas@yahoo.com, respectively.

Posted in Border Security, Essential Reading Series, Immigration & Visa Policy, Law Enforcement, Terror Strategic Analysis | Comments

Regulation of Rogue Internet Pharmacies Overdue

Thursday, October 16th, 2008

The President yesterday signed legislation that will shut down what has become an alarming and dangerous trend: rogue Internet “pharmacies” selling drugs to people without the proper regulation and oversight to assure consumers that they are getting the drugs they ordered.

As the former head of the DEA, and then as Undersecretary at the Department of Homeland Security, I saw the kind of abuse that could occur on such Internet sites, many of which are scams – or worse – criminal operations preying on the young, the sick and the elderly.

The legislation is called “The Ryan Haight Act.” It was named after a teenager who died of an overdose on painkillers. How did the boy get the drugs? He used parents’ credit card to order them off a rogue site on the Internet.

Another problem of such sites is their connection to the increase in the spread of counterfeit drugs. While one danger is that young kids are indeed getting the drugs they are ordering, including powerful painkillers, that could result in addiction and even death, another danger is when the sick and elderly order needed medication and receive bogus medicines, resulting in the patient not getting the urgent medical care they need.

I would like to applaud Senators Norm Coleman and Diane Feinstein for introducing this important legislation. In short, it will:

Require Internet pharmacies to identify their business, pharmacist and physician for consumers;
Prohibit Internet pharmacies from distributing drugs to consumers with a prescription based solely on an online questionnaire;
Give state Attorneys General the ability to shut down rogue websites nationwide, rather than just in their individual jurisdictions.

The ability to order prescriptions via the Internet is one more example of how technology is changing our world for the better. As the tragic case of Ryan Haight shows, however, that with such new opportunities come the need for increased vigilance and proper oversight. This legislation is past due.

Note: For information on how to spot rogue Internet pharmacy sites, read the DEA fact sheet.

Posted in Cyber Security, Featured Feed, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Law Enforcement, Narcotics | Comments

Chertoff & Team Get the Starting Job

Wednesday, October 15th, 2008

Since the beginning of October, DHS’ leadership has been working what seems to be double overtime on top of their already over-burdened schedules in talking about cyber security. This past Tuesday was no different as Sec. Chertoff addressed an audience of public and private sector members at the US Chamber of Commerce.

Per his usual speaking style, the Secretary was very methodical in explaining the very real cyber security threats posed by nation-states (Russia & China), criminal enterprises and terrorists. Chertoff also stressed the collective responsibility of the public and private sectors (as well as individual citizens) to work together to address these threats.

His remarks largely echoed the points that he and other DHS leaders have made throughout the month. What has struck me about the amount of energy that Sec. Chertoff and others have spent on this subject is the unspoken ‘campaign’ it seems to have waged in doing its cyber security outreach.

In the weeks prior to October’s National Cyber Security Awareness Month outreach, there were numerous reports, media stories, Congressional hearings and discussions about who was in charge of America’s cyber security, what plan will be put in place, and who was going to manage all of the billions of dollars being spent on this problem.

As this was going on, various federal agencies waved their hands positioning to be the cyber lead (and to get their share of the money). At the same time the GAO issued another series of reports expressing their concerns about the issue while Members of Congress and Presidential candidates chimed in.

While all of this back and forth kibitzing went on, the White House made the call and put DHS in charge.

There was immediate criticism. The minute that announcement came out, you could hear the laughter and snide remarks coming from the other federal agencies, the Congress and the media. “DHS? In charge? Yeah right… This is a joke right? They can’t manage anything.”

However, since the White House tapped DHS, Chertoff and his team have not looked back using every possible opportunity they can to talk about what cyber security is, why it matters, what they (DHS) are doing about it, and who they plan to work with along the way (that would be most everyone). While some of the snide remarks and chuckles are certainly deserved in some areas, the Department has not been shy about talking about its cyber security plans

DHS has been overtly making their case to any and every audience it can on why we should feel confident in their leadership on this matter. Their argument, along with the existing Departmental mechanisms and the manner in which DHS has conducted this campaign, might just work too.

Given that cyber and IT are essentially the central nervous system to every bodily organ and system (critical infrastructure/key resource) we have in this country, whatever command is relayed through this system is ultimately followed. In the five years that we’ve charged DHS to keep the homeland ‘body’ secure, it has built a number of structures and systems (NIPP, sector coordinating councils, etc.) to monitor our overall infrastructure health and well-being. While these structures and systems are by no means perfect, they provide a better system to give the homeland a check-up, dispense medicine or urgent care than any other means available in the federal sphere.

While it may be really novel and headline grabbing to run a mission of this type out of the White House as some have suggested, the fact that it has no real mechanisms aside from a bully pulpit to make things happen leaves an effort like this almost undoable.

If you’re looking for proof of that concept – look at the lessons experienced by then-Homeland Security Advisor to the President, former Gov. Tom Ridge. He had a mission where failure was not an option; he had a great title, a cool White House office, microphones and cameras when he wanted them (and also when he didn’t) and several other perks that are novel to being ‘the President’s guy.’ In the end though, he did not have the authority programmatically, operationally or budget-wise to make things happen like he needed. The parties he had to work with – Justice, Transportation, Treasury, etc. all smiled, slow-rolled and many times outright ignored him and his efforts. No mission can succeed in those conditions.

We can’t afford failure in cyber and that is why Chertoff’s and the Department’s argument/campaign is so surprisingly strong.

Much like a quarterback, DHS’ work in cyber security will be judged by a fairly straightforward set of metrics in grading its overall performance:

* Can they move the ball downfield?
* Can they adapt to a threatening environment?
* Can they keep possession of the ball?
* Can they ‘audible’ if necessary?
* Do fellow players respond to their leadership?
* Are they able to put points on the board?

We don’t know the answers to these questions yet but I can guarantee that all eyes, ‘armchair quarterbacks,’ and critics are certainly watching to see how DHS will perform in this most challenging of missions.

While Chertoff will not have the opportunity to ‘coach’ DHS beyond January 2009, he has put the Department in as good a position as possible to succeed with the ‘game plan’ he has put on the chalkboard. We can only hope DHS has the mechanisms, players and bench strength in place to see the cyber security mission through some very challenging contests and seasons ahead.

Tags: Cyber Security, DHS
Posted in Cyber Security | Comments

Vulnerabilities Should Be Front and Center in Homeland Security Spending

Tuesday, October 14th, 2008

Recently, The Reform Institute sponsored the “Forum on Resilience in Homeland Security Policy” which sought to set out an agenda for preparedness, protection, response and recovery for the next Congress. While the panel highlighted the theme of “Focused Leadership,” I believe we need to come to grips with what we are willing to pay for homeland security and decide whether we are going to go forward on the “cheap” or whether we can define a policy that we are willing to fund to the max. The Reform Institute’s report quotes Karl Rauscher, Executive Director of the Bell Labs Network Reliability and Security Office, in the following way: “Threat versus vulnerability is an important distinction. Threats are infinite; vulnerabilities finite.” Rauscher makes the point that vulnerabilities are much more within our control. He suggests that the private sector is much more willing to take on the task of addressing vulnerabilities than threats.

I think this makes sense. I see a country suffering from homeland security spending fatigue. I see people who are wondering whether what we go through at airports is really doing anything and whether our efforts at border security will actually work. It’s time to change the paradigm. Up until now we’ve thought about the threat of Islamic terrorism and failed to prioritize the vulnerabilities that we have. Spending to reduce the identified vulnerabilities to our cyber system, our infrastructure, our borders and our national iconic emblems in the National Capital Region is more justified because it is quantifiable.

What will it take to get us to the point where the dialogue can make this kind of change? The answer is leadership. There are political points to be made by maintaining the status quo discussion about potential threats – whether they are air cargo, supply chain, container screening or others. These threats can be difficult to defend against with the resources currently available to DHS. On the other hand, spending money to reduce or eliminate vulnerabilities is realistic, but it comes at the cost of reducing opportunities to gain partisan political advantage on homeland security issues.

Tags: Karl Rauscher, Security Priorities
Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector | Comments

Providing Oversight to Blackwater Arms Exports

Tuesday, October 14th, 2008

The Associated Press: Blackwater to check itself on US arms export law

Amid a federal probe into whether Blackwater Worldwide smuggled weapons into Iraq, the private security contractor said Thursday it has established a panel of defense experts and former prosecutors to ensure it follows U.S. export laws.

In a move that acknowledges the company may not have adequately complied with those laws in the past, founder and CEO Erik Prince said the creation of a three-person oversight committee directly responds to some of the challenges the company has faced in following U.S. controls.

“Our company has experienced remarkable growth in the last few years,” he said in a news release. “This growth, our work for the U.S. government around the world, and the nature of the services we offer have created compliance challenges.”

Federal authorities have been investigating since last year whether Blackwater improperly brought weapons into Iraq, allegations the company has strongly denied. Earlier this year, two former employees were sentenced on gun-running charges after the company said they stole from Blackwater’s armory. And in June, federal agents seized 22 automatic rifles from a company vault.

Export control laws limit how companies and individuals handle sensitive resources, including weapons and information.

Andrew Howell, Blackwater’s general counsel, said the company has had trouble integrating compliance controls into a global business that works under tight time constraints and in dangerous environments.

“Ongoing reviews by the Departments of Justice, State and Commerce have highlighted the need for a significant and systems-wide initiative,” Howell said in a release.

A federal grand jury has also been investigating the fatal shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians who were killed in September 2007 when Blackwater guards opened fire in a crowded Baghdad square.

The compliance committee will include two former U.S. attorneys — Robert C. Bonner and Asa Hutchinson — and former Lockheed Martin Corp. ethics executive Carol R. Marshall. Karen Jones, who oversaw import and export operations at Raytheon Co.’s missile division, will serve as Blackwater’s new vice president of export compliance.

Posted in Law Enforcement, WMD, Chemical & Biological | Comments

The Most Dangerous Place in the World: Pakistan

Monday, October 13th, 2008

Anybody who wants to understand the dangers we face in the coming years (possibly months) with regard to militant Islamist threats should read this column by Sumit Ganguly.

Danger Ahead for the Most Dangerous Place in the World – washingtonpost.com

The grim truth is that Pakistan is becoming something alarmingly close to a failed state. And that could have disastrous consequences for the United States, NATO and Afghanistan’s struggle to hold back its own Taliban insurgency … We need a stern, serious international effort — led by the United States — to put Pakistan back together again, reform its institutions and reorder its priorities. If not, we will face a terrifying prospect: Pakistan’s collapse (slow or otherwise) into a full-blown failed state, armed with nuclear weapons, riven by ethnic tensions, suffused with resentment and zealotry, and with roving bands of Taliban sympathizers and bin Ladenists in its midst.

Posted in Intelligence, Radicalization, Terror Strategic Analysis, WMD, Chemical & Biological | Comments

Securing Global Supply Chain a Priority

Sunday, October 12th, 2008

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is about to issue a rule implementing its “10 plus 2″ security initiative. It is about time. This rule describes how importers will report 10 additional items of information on cargo shipped to the United States, while the carrier provides two more data sets.

The information will significantly help the department identify suspicious cargo. Not only will “10 plus 2″ greatly enhance identifying high-risk cargo, but it will largely alleviate the need to scan 100 percent of the cargo sent to the United States. The 100 percent shipping container inspection rule was mandated by congressional legislation in 2007. Since then both the results of the DHS pilot project and Congress’s own Government Accountability Office (GAO) have concluded that the 100 percent mandate will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement and could significantly damage trade while adding minimal additional security value.DHS should implement the “10 plus 2″ rule. Meanwhile, Congress should establish an independent commission to reevaluate the need for 100 percent scanning of cargo containers.

Knowledge Is Real Security

There are about 20 million sea-going shipping containers in the world that make about 200 million trips per year. In one of its first programs to enhance transportation security after 9/11, DHS established the Container Security Initiative (CSI). CSI evaluates data on each container bound for the United States and determines which might represent a potential risk that warrants further investigation. The U.S. works with other countries to inspect the high-risk containers before they are loaded on ships and sent to the United States. This efficient process requires physically scanning 2–3 percent of inbound containers. This has minimal impact of moving global trade, adds a valuable security deterrent, and enables DHS to focus its efforts on the most serious risks.

In January, DHS issued the Notice of Proposed Rule Making called the Importer Security Filing (ISF) and Additional Carrier Requirements. The ruling requires both importers and carriers to submit the additional cargo information before the cargo is loaded on U.S.-bound vessels. The most important additions to the “10 plus 2″ reporting requirements include adding where the materials in the container are from and which conveyer is responsible for packing the container. These data points are invaluable for identifying potential sources of malicious activities that might attempt to place something harmful or dangerous in a container. Using this data, DHS will be able to identify entities that are not known and trusted—the most likely source of illicit activity—and target them for inspection.

The “10 plus 2″ initiative will make CSI targeting much more effective. Combined with other programs underway by DHS and other counterterrorism efforts, the likelihood of container shipping representing a serious threat will be greatly diminished.

Manufacturers, shippers, and other commercial entities already produce data on who ordered a cargo, where it was made, and to whom it will be sent. They also provide information on anyone who paid for, touched, or moved the goods. Using this data to better assess the risks would represent a reasonable effort to improve what is already being done. Combined with aggressive policing and counterterrorism efforts, it would deter terrorists who want to target America’s ports.

Ship of Fools

In contrast to the DHS initiative, Congress mandated establishing a program to scan every U.S.-bound container. There is no viable case for this approach. In June, Homeland Security officials briefed legislators on the results of the Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) test. Congressionally mandated, the SFI test evaluated the feasibility of scanning 100 percent of the over 11 million oceangoing containers shipped annually to the United States. The report concluded that such a requirement would be impractical and unwise.

Likewise, a GAO report issued that same month identified nine major challenges to implementing 100 percent scanning. The report pointed out that “foreign governments could call for reciprocity of 100 percent scanning, requiring the United States to scan cargo containers, and some view this requirement as a barrier to trade.” In these troubled economic times, it makes no sense to add unnecessary costs to the expense of buying and selling globally. The congressional mandate would provide only minimal utility at the cost of billions of dollars in new duties, taxes, and operating costs.

Congress should establish an independent, bipartisan commission to study the results of the SFI and the mandate for 100 percent screening of shipping containers and air cargo. The commission should assess the likely threats and look into alternatives for securing global supply chains. The commission should report its findings after the 2008 presidential elections. Congress could then return to the issue in early 2009 with the politics of the election behind it. Based on the results of the commission’s recommendations, Congress should then modify the 100 percent mandate so that U.S. policy bolsters security and prosperity equally well.

What Works

Whether the danger is from a nuclear warhead or a car bomb, the most effective techniques for thwarting terrorist attacks remain terrorist network disruption, targeted investigation and screening, and reasonable physical security measures—not trying to inspect everything. DHS is on the right track to do that with its container security programs. Congress is not.

Posted in Featured Feed, Maritime & Seaport Security, Supply Chain Security, Transportation Security | Comments

Laptop Searches: Another National Security Tool Out of the Toolbox

Saturday, October 11th, 2008

Another national security tool appears on the verge of taking a hit this week. A tool that has been effective despite its rare use. A tool that has persevered despite the numerous attempts to have the Supreme Court restrict its use.

Despite the protections of the 4th Amendment “that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” the Supreme
Court has repeatedly stated that the authority of the United States to search the baggage of an arriving international traveler is based on its inherent authority to protect its territorial integrity. By reason of
that authority, it is entitled to require that whoever seeks entry must establish the right to enter and to bring into the country whatever he may carry.

This position was recently reaffirmed by the 9th Circuit, the United States versus Michael Timothy Arnold. Arnold entered the U.S. at LAX on July 17, 2005 after a three week trip to the Philippines. A search of his
laptop computer by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) disclosed images depicting child pornography. Arnold filed his motion to suppress this evidence claiming that the government conducted the search without reasonable suspicion.

CBP (and ICE) have internal operating policies regarding the search (and seizure) of laptop computers and other electronic devices. They have been conservative in conducting these searches as reflected in CBP’s most recent statistics from the first two weeks of August that show that 17
million people sought entry into the U.S., and 40 of these had their laptops searched. Some of those “40 searches” were as minimal as asking the traveler to turn on their laptop to make sure that they were not
concealing contraband in the computer. CBP spokesperson Amy Kudwa stated that “you’re more likely to be struck by lightning than to have your laptop searched.”

Despite this it appears that Congress has again succumbed to the pressure of many civil rights and advocacy groups with the introduction of the Traveler’s Privacy Protection Act sponsored by Senators Feingold, Cantwell, Akaka and Wyden and in the House by Representative Adam Smith.

The bill is designed to prevent DHS officers and agents from searching laptops and other electronic devices without reasonable suspicion. The Act requires DHS agents to have reasonable suspicion of illegal activity
before searching the contents of electronic devices carried by U.S. citizens or lawful residents.

This legislation is supported by the ACLU, Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), Association for Travel Executives (ACTE) and the airline industry. The ACLU is asking that the Act be amended to include all travelers to the U.S. (It is presently limited to USCs and LPRs.)

Another national security tool out of the toolbox. Another challenge and hurdle to law enforcement as they continue to protect us from terrorists, pedophiles, espionage, theft of intellectual property rights, etc.
Another circumvention of the Constitution and its protections.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Congress, Politics & PR, Law Enforcement | Comments

Talking about cyber security in terms that resonate

Thursday, October 9th, 2008

Under the right set of circumstances, one key stroke by a terrorist with intent to cause harm, can be as damaging to a city as a suicide bomber. We have all become dependent upon computer systems to coordinate the hustle and bustle of life, to manage life-sustaining functions in hospitals and ensure the operations of communications, commerce, public health and electrical power just to name a few. This makes cyber security — the protection of our computer networks — a top priority for our federal government.

DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff understands the ins and outs of cyber security. Sitting down with some bloggers yesterday, he showed a strong command of the issue. In an era when people have lost trust in government, they can rest assured that Chertoff understands how critical this issues is to our national security.

But, focusing national attention on cyber security initiatives will require cooperation not only from the multitude of government agencies that might claim jurisdiction of this issue (whether that be Air Force, National Security Agency, DHS, DoJ, FBI or the DoD) but also the cooperation of the private sector that has a vested interest in the nation’s critical infrastructure. To remain a priority in the federal government, an issue must have political support in order to break free of the bureaucratic inertia that stifles so many efforts toward change.

In this case, the cyber security issue lacks the political support outside government for it to remain a priority. While Secretary Chertoff understands the issue, it remains to be seen whether or not the American public does. Cyber security, to most people, brings to mind threats of identity theft or threats to a company’s internal trade secrets and intellectual property—but hardly ever do they understand cyber security to be a national security issue that threatens the safety of hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of Americans.

Chertoff and company deserve credit for engaging the public about the issue, but they will need to put it in terms that resonate with most Americans.

Posted in Cyber Security | Comments