|     |     |  About Us   |   Archives   |   Contact Us |


Archive for November, 2008

« Older Entries

A Path Forward: Constitutional Protections in Homeland Security

Sunday, November 30th, 2008

On Wednesday, December 3rd, the Majority Staff of the House Committee on Homeland Security will host a series of roundtable discussions on the future of privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties at the Department of Homeland Security.

The event, entitled “A Path Forward: Constitutional Protections in Homeland Security”, is sponsored by Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security. Experts from the public sector will give their views on the focus the Department should take in dealing with privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties during the new Administration. There will be a total of six panels, all listed below.

Chairman Thompson released the following statement regarding the event:

“As the Department of Homeland Security enters its first transition, it is essential that its new leadership and Congress work together to ensure that the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of American citizens are made a priority in the continuation of the Department’s current programs and implementation of new policies. The Department must understand that it can both preserve the Constitutional rights of the American people and maintain its mission to keep our nation secure.”

When: Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008

Where: 311 Cannon House Office Building

Time: 9:00 am – 4:00 pm

Panels:

9am – The Road Ahead: Protecting Civil Liberties in a Natural Disaster

10am – A New Direction: Privacy Implications in Datamining

11am – The Way Forward: Privacy and Domestic Intelligence & Information Sharing

1pm – The Advancing Lane: Transportation Security & Privacy and Civil Liberties

2pm – The Changing Course: Privacy, Civil Liberties, and the Border

3pm – A Progressive Dimension: Cybersecurity and Privacy

Please follow this link for information on Moderators and Panelists.

For More Information, please contact Dena Graziano or Adam Comis at (202) 225-9978.

Tags:
Posted in Featured Feed | Comments

Updated: Mumbai Terror Attack Analysis Writings

Friday, November 28th, 2008

A collection of stories and online backgrounders about the latest analysis of the terror attack in Mumbai and the perpetrators behind it. Check back for ongoing updates.

Strategic Motivations for the Mumbai Attack: Upending Pakistan’s Frail Stability

Mumbai fallout: Will India’s government survive?

The new tactics of terror? Small armies of terror

British Muslims have become a “mainstay” of global jihad

The political price of terrorism in India

Mumbai attacks may derail India-Pakistan peace process

Deccan Mujahideen is a name ‘written in blood’

Wikipedia entry on Deccan Mujahideen

Behind the Mumbai Terror: The evolution of the schism between India’s Muslims

Indian terrorism has deep roots

Clues suggest homegrown terrorists in India attack

India points finger at Pakistan

Photo Essay: Mumbai under attack

Security Experts Critical of Lax Hotel Security

In Depth: How terror unfolded in Mumbai

Economic Impact: Mumbai attacks to send Indian stock market steeply downward

Planned attack designed to create chaos

Who is the Lashkar e Toiba?

2006 Profile of Lashkar e Toiba

Indian Prime Minister: Mumbai Attackers Based Outside Country

India’s 9/11 Moment: Mumbai is no stranger to terror, but this has been the biggest, most frightening attack yet

World Leaders Condemn Mumbai Attacks

Terrorists target haunts of wealthy and foreign

‘We want US and British’ say Mumbai gunmen

Posted in International, Terror Strategic Analysis | Comments

An open letter to Governor Napolitano

Friday, November 28th, 2008

Governor Napolitano,

Congratulations on your nomination as the Secretary of Homeland Security.

You have signed up for one of the most difficult and most scrutinized jobs in America. The department you are about to lead is responsible for maintaining freedom and liberty while protecting the nation from unthinkable man-made or natural disasters, a delicate balance if there ever was one. Needless to say, it is one of the most important jobs we have in government. DHS was created at a time in our history when our nation felt vulnerable, uncertain and angry.

Those of us who served at DHS during its start-up phase remember that though the department was started with a strategy, there existed no historical references for what we were undertaking; that is, many of the functions that were assigned to the Department were new and had never been done before on the scale we were asked to do them. But we had a commonly understood mission – we knew the horror of 9/11 could easily happen again and we were determined to prevent and protect this nation from the next attack. While we were never satisfied that we created a department that is fully functional, complete and without need for change, every person in DHS whether political or career can take some degree of pride in having done what was never done before at a time when our nation needed us most.

Despite the seemingly daunting task, you are fortunate in many ways.

1. Your transition team has the benefit of hindsight to guide you forward;
2. You can take what works;
3. Change what hasn’t;
4. Create what is needed, and (most importantly);
5. You can define success on your terms (with help from Congress, the White House, state and local leaders, the media, the general public and private sector, and of course – the terrorist groups intent on doing this nation harm).

More than anything, you are fortunate that there is a cadre of dedicated, professional, and highly competent career staff that will guide and assist you as you lay the ground work for a new direction and strategy to protect this nation. The “politicals” will always come and go and fortunately we can only do so much while we occupy our lofty positions of leadership. The real heroes are the career professional staff who joined the Department to contribute to this nation at a time of its most urgent need, not for 2 years, or 4 years, but for what could span their entire career. They didn’t join with the goal of pursuing a political agenda to make a name for themselves; they unselfishly and frequently anonymously contribute to the success of the Department with little expectation of being recognized.

After almost 6 years of being in the “start-up” mode, they need new energy and leadership to get them focused on the mission with urgency again. They will rise up to any challenge you can throw at them if you can convince them that you believe in them as much as they believe in what they do.

Governor, you are indeed taking on one of the toughest jobs in America, but you are not alone. As you stand on the podium to take your oath of office, look around you – the men and women of DHS whether they are wearing the uniform of the Coast Guard or Customs and Border Protection, or the every day dress of civilian attire-they will never let you down.

As this administration passes the keys over to you, we, the concerned American public, only ask that you never lose sight of the urgency of the mission of the Department and never forget the career people who have been there before you — and will be there after you–as these dedicated career professionals will give you all they have to ensure your success.

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

Global Entry — Built It and They Will Come

Friday, November 28th, 2008

There has a decent amount of press over the past year on the new registered traveler program, launched by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to move pre-vetted international travelers more quickly through immigration processing upon return to the U.S. 

Global Entry was launched in the summer at three airports and has now expanded to seven locations: New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport, Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Washington Dulles International Airport, Los Angeles International, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International, Chicago O’Hare International and Miami International.  CBP plans on having 20 airports operational by the end of 2009. 

However, despite the solid nature of the program, enrollment numbers have been quite low – around 5000 at last count.  To CBP’s great credit, they have recognized that bringing in one traveler at a time to the CBP offices in the basement of airports is not a way to grow the program quickly.  So they have purchased and customized about a dozen “jump kits” to bring the interview and fingerprinting process directly to the customer. 

Last week, CBP conducted the first actual on-site Global Entry enrollment at a National Business Travel Association committee meeting in Old Town Alexandria.  Each applicant had to fill out the application on-line ahead of time, but the quick interview and fingerprint was done by bringing meeting participants out one a time to a controlled interview environment.  The participants found the process friendly and much less disruptive than coordinating an interview at an airport location. 

CBP envisions taking the Global Entry enrollment to large conventions or to corporations whose travel managers can deliver a large batch of customers at once.  At $100 for a five-year enrollment period, Global Entry is a good deal, especially if the enrollment process comes to you.  For more information, see here.

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

Conviction in Holy Land Foundation a Significant Victory in the War on Terrorism

Wednesday, November 26th, 2008

Early on in the post-9/11 war on terrorism, the federal government and specifically the Treasury Department, recognized the threat that charities posed as a mechanism to raise and funnel funds to terrorist organizations.

To a great extent, the federal government focused its terrorism financing investigative efforts on these charities because they were able to document the export of millions of dollars to suspect “front” organizations in areas of the world of national security concern. Charitable organizations in the Middle East have a history of providing funding to Islamist militant efforts. They were, for example, a strong source of support to mujaheddin fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Some have also been documented as sources of funding for ongoing Islamist terror organizations.

This week’s conviction of five former organizers of the Holy Land Foundation, an Islamic charity operating in Dallas, for funneling more that $12 million to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, is clearly the most significant victory in this effort to crack down on terror financing through charitable groups.

While a clear victory, the history of this case also shows how difficult such prosecutions can be. The case was investigated for fifteen years and took two long trials to reach a verdict. The first trial ended in a mistrial last year.

The federal government’s focus on Islamic charities has been an issue of major concern in the American Muslim community. While the Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field Division for ICE/DHS, I attended multiple community outreach events with the Muslim-American community in Brooklyn, Long Island, Queens and Staten Island, NY. Participants voiced concerns at each of these events that the federal government was “targeting” Muslim American charities without specific proof that the contributions went to support terrorism.

Although the Holy Land Foundation convictions will not convince everyone of this proof, it is a clear step forward. Many in this community were aghast to learn that any part of their charitable donations might be used to support terrorism. The Holy Land Foundation conviction shows that, in some cases, this is indeed what is happening – even in charitable organizations based in America. (And while it is important to acknowledge that some portions of Islamic charitable funds are being directed to support terrorism, it should also be understood that all charitable organizations should not be tainted.)

These cases are some of the most difficult to investigate and prove in federal law enforcement as it is near impossible to trace the money from the streets of the United States directly to the hands of terrorists overseas. My compliments to the investigative and prosecutorial team that put the case together and produced enough evidence to convict. Other similar high-profile cases resulted in acquittals, dead-locked juries and convictions for lesser charges.

Millions of dollars were exported to support the terrorist activities of Hamas. Millions of dollars of precious federal resources were spent to prosecute the organizers responsible for this activity. The case sends a clear message that the United States will not allow the charitable community to be co-opted by terrorist organizations to further their violent agenda.

Posted in Civil liberties & Privacy, International, Law Enforcement, Terror Finance | Comments

Congressional Chaos

Tuesday, November 25th, 2008

Last week, I had the opportunity to participate in a conference on domestic security hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. My particular panel focused on the need for reform of Congressional oversight of the Department of Homeland Security — appropriately enough, CSIS chose to dub it “Congressional Chaos.”

The panel – that was moderated by Dr. James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation and also included Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, partner of Andrew Howell and Stewart Verdery at Monument Policy Group and Mike Russell of the House Homeland Security Committee (Minority Office) – once again demonstrates the convoluted maze of oversight that DHS faces each and every day.

Now that President-Elect Obama has all but officially announced that Gov. Janet Napolitano will become the next DHS Secretary, his DHS-focused Transition team will begin prioritizing policy and programming initiatives for his first term.  For everyone’s sake, let’s hope working with Congress to reform the current oversight structure is among them.

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

Texas Governor Shocked Shocked to Discover Illegal Aliens in his Jails

Monday, November 24th, 2008

It appears that Rick Perry, the governor of border state Texas, has just discovered he has illegal aliens in his jails. And that some of them are being released back into the community to possibly commit more crimes when they should have been deported. (Federal law dictates that aliens convicted of felonies are automatically eligible for deportation.) He wants some heads to roll – just preferably not his. So he has written the classic “strongly worded letter” to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

That’s leadership. When in need of doing something without doing anything, write a letter.

This most recent controversy is the latest evidence of how dire is the need for comprehensive immigration reform. (And by “comprehensive,” I am using the word literally, not simply as a euphemism for amnesty.) As we saw in the previous Congress, it won’t be easy. This isn’t a partisan issue, and the normal levers of power available to congressional leadership are lacking here. Immigration reform pits Democrats against Democrats, Republicans against Republicans; governors against congressman and mayors against governors; liberals against liberals and conservatives against conservatives; cats against dogs and dogs against mice. The only common enemy seems at times to be the poor agency responsible for enforcing the conflicting laws and intentions of Congress and its critics: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). On one day it is criticized for not enforcing the law aggressively enough; on another, it’s criticized for being too aggressive.

Another messy aspect of immigration, also in need of legislative redress, is the fact that many cities, Houston being one of them, have enacted local “sanctuary laws” that block local authorities from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement authorities.

The ruckus in Houston emerged after the Houston Chronicle wrote an oddly timed series on the issue of illegal immigrants who have been convicted of crimes being released back into Harris County. The story was oddly timed because ICE has recently announced one of its most ambitious programs ever, called Secure Communities, in which it seeks to partner with local jails and prisons for the express purpose of identifying and deporting criminal aliens who have served their time and are due for release. Additionally, Harris County has stepped up and partnered with ICE via the 287g program (allowing ICE to train local law enforcement at the jails). This side of the story got shorted in the Chronicle expose, forcing ICE to issue its own fact sheet to clarify the progress being made in Harris County.

One suspects, then, that quite a bit of gamesmanship is taking place here – both by the Chronicle, which increases readership with its alarmist perspective, and Gov. Perry, who tries to dodge accountability for local criminals being released back into Texas communities by local jails. (After all, it is the local law enforcement agency that processes the prisoners. ICE agents can only take action if they are notified by the local facility.)

Across the country, state and local authorities have resisted cooperating with federal immigration enforcement for years. The 287g program has been in place, and only a miniscule number of localities, such as the Harris County Jail, have committed to the partnership. Indeed, most have actively resisted. No small wonder. Engaging immigration enforcement is a costly and politically dangerous move. It’s far easier to dodge responsibility, and then blame the feds for not doing their job.

But that won’t solve the immigration mess. The simple truth is that ICE doesn’t have anywhere near the resources necessary to single-handedly fix the illegal immigration problem in America. The only way we can ever solve the problem is by implementing more efficient programs that take advantage of new technologies, such as Secure Communities (and US VISIT and SEVIS before that); finding a solution in the private sector that will meet labor needs while not undermining the nation’s immigration laws; and recognizing that enforcement will take a partnership between federal and state/local authorities.

The Secure Communities program is a step in the right direction, but nobody should have false expectations. The program is in a pilot stage now as ICE attempts to implement new technologies that will provide local authorities the resources to quickly and accurately identify aliens being jailed for felony crimes. (The current approach? The jailer asks the criminal alien and hopes he suddenly grows a conscience and tells the truth.) Secure Communities will take several years to fully implement. Plenty more criminal aliens will “slip through the cracks,” as the Chronicle puts it, though it’s not exactly slipping through the cracks when most local jails take no steps whatever to identify criminal aliens and report them to ICE.

Most important, and perhaps most challengingly, the program will require the full cooperation and collaboration of state and local authorities – including local law enforcement, who may flinch at the new financial burden and jurisdictional headache, as well as the locally elected officials who may buckle under the pressure of immigration lawyers and advocates who oppose any crackdowns on illegal immigration as “Gestapo” tactics (to use a phrase too easily tossed about by ICE critics these days).

In short, progress is being made but there is still a ways to go.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Featured Feed, Immigration & Visa Policy, Law Enforcement | Comments

FEMA’s Future: Items to Remember

Monday, November 24th, 2008

With the Presidential Transition underway, the nearly constant debate about whether FEMA belongs inside or outside the Department of Homeland Security is picking up steam again.

For years, we’ve heard arguments from former FEMA Administrators James Lee Witt and Michael Brown that the Agency should be independent.

Former Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as well as several other Members of Congress have also gone on the record to say that FEMA should be removed from DHS.

The newest voice to this chorus for FEMA independence comes from the International Assembly of Emergency Managers, whose Board of Directors voted unanimously this week to call upon the incoming Administration to remove FEMA from DHS and establish it as free-standing Cabinet Agency reporting directly to the President.

The assembling FEMA Independence Chorus is probably comparable to what a gathering of the Flat Earth Society might  have been in King Ferdinand’s and Queen Isabella’s Court if they had assembled for a reunion in 1497.  Five years after Columbus’ discovery of the new world, the same people who told him that he couldn’t sail West without falling off the face of the Earth were still holding fast to beliefs anchored in the past long after being proven wrong.

All too often, the failsafe position in life is to go back to the way things used to be.  Unfortunately, the FEMA that these vocal critics want to see as an independent entity is not the FEMA the country needs or wants. Our threats and challenges are bigger and more complex than ever, and we need the new partnerships and strategies that are being built inside FEMA today.  Making FEMA a solitary unit operating independently of the nation’s efforts in intelligence, national security, infrastructure protection, law enforcement, military access, public health and more (all of which DHS has) is not a recipe for success.  It’s a recipe for renewing legacy turf battles, operational confusion and the pre-9/11 go-it-alone approaches that we do not have the time or luxury to afford.

If we have learned anything in the post 9/11 and post-Katrina era, it is that integration and evolution work. These two words should be at the center of the FEMA debate.  Integration calls upon bringing various parts together to function towards a common goal.  Evolution requires adaptation to survive in new and hostile environments.  What we are doing with FEMA inside DHS speaks volumes for the country’s progress in building the federal emergency management capacity and the larger homeland mission.

While it has not  been smooth or easy, the performance of FEMA since Katrina has embodied the principles and success of integration and evolution.  From dealing with almost constant California wildfires; devastating tornadoes in the Midwest and South;  another huge hurricane (Ike) and more, the FEMA of today operating as part of DHS is doing more today than ever before – and its doing a helluva job.

Why?  It has more people, more resources, more reach and more involvement than ever before. It has access to more capabilities and equipment (military, law enforcement assets, etc.) and it is part of a larger mission of homeland security.

The past two years serve as proof that the post-Katrina FEMA improvement measures enacted by Congress and the Bush Administration are working.  Ripping FEMA out of DHS means starting anew. With everything else the incoming Administration has on its plate, this is one area where drastic reform is unneeded.

FEMA is already the undisputed leader of the nation’s preparedness and response efforts, serving as the point on the National Response Framework and the focal point of the Homeland Security Grant Programs.  The Agency has also widened its reach through an increased number of public-private partnerships and strengthening coordination between its Regions and state, local and tribal governments and involvement with many of the Fusion Centers.

Are there still areas where FEMA can improve?  Absolutely, and guess what? There always will be.

The decision regarding FEMA’s fate is ultimately up to the incoming Administration and Congress.  If the new decision-makers give in to the calls for FEMA independence, they will face some weighty questions.  Most immediately, an independent FEMA would create uncertainty for the future of the National Response Framework and would undoubtedly disrupt the Agency’s Grant Programs and the monies they distribute back state, local and tribal governments to secure back home.  Additionally, the move will likely increase pressure from other legacy DHS components (Immigration & Naturalization Service, Secret Service, US Customs, etc) who have expressed a desire to reassert their independence from the DHS umbrella.  More fundamentally,  when a disaster strikes, which agency will take the lead on response and recovery efforts – the FEMA-free DHS or the newly independent agency?

Disasters already create confusion – independent of those who respond to them.  Removing emergency management from DHS will increase that confusion and will do nothing to improve the nation’s security; instead, it weakens it. While the integration of FEMA and the other 20+ components into DHS was far from a flawless effort, patience and perseverance are paying off.  The lessons learned and results of the past 2+ years prove it.

Before the Obama Administration starts moving around the government’s organizational boxes, they should seriously look at FEMA’s recent successes.  They may just find out they’ve already got a helluva engine to help them secure the homeland.

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

The Business of Government – Duplication, Internal Conflict and Politics vs Getting the Job Done

Saturday, November 22nd, 2008

The Obama Administration promises hope for change.  As Christmas approaches, a certain, “What do you want for Christmas?” is balanced by, “What do you want from the Obama Administration?” vibe.  The NY Times reports on a conflict between the NYPD and FBI on a series of eavesdropping measures.

Unusually, I will comment in detail on the rights and wrongs of broad brush surveillance measures, as the facts in the report are sparse.  I will note that a generic warrant request that seems to be for ‘telephones in the subway’ is unacceptably broad, and that the justification materials for the warrant must be interesting reading.

What is worthy of comment is the extensive duplication we are seeing, and how politics and multi-tiering is wasting time and resources.  If the NYPD’s applications aren’t making it through the FBI, there seems to be little reason to believe that they will pass the FISA Court – assuming they relate to international terrorism.  Instead of working to establish better procedures to meet the requirement, the New York police are being subjected to a public fight based on a battle of mutual blame.

I can only hope that the NYPD hasn’t staked its entire effort on getting these warrants through, and are proactively developing alternative methods of gathering the intelligence they need.  What is worrying is that there appears to be hints of an interagency battle; this is not the first time that I have protested that interagency battles are still too common, and are wasteful of all the resources that matter; information, money and man-hours.

Clearly we aren’t seeing the whole story, but what we are seeing suggests that rectifying the business of government is one area where the Obama Administration can make gains that are both self-supporting and cost effective – maybe Santa can help me with my wish.

Tags:
Posted in Featured Feed | Comments

What TSA Should be Discussing – But Isn’t

Friday, November 21st, 2008

This past Monday, I attended a Blogger’s Roundtable with Secretary Chertoff and TSA Administrator Kip Hawley to discuss aviation security initiatives.  While the Secretary’s prepared remarks focused on the flurry of activity the Department is doing with General Aviation security (which I think is a step in the right direction), the discussion soon drifted to the usual set of issues – Secure Flight, Registered Traveler, shoe screening, unionization of screeners, transition activity, lines at airports ….and the list goes on.

I attended the Roundtable hoping to hear a discussion around TSA’s much publicized Advanced Technology (AT) deployment at the checkpoint and the lesser known Project Newton activities the agency is undertaking with regard to the screening of checked baggage.  After all, two of TSA’s biggest mandates following 9/11 were to screen 100% of all checked baggage on aircraft and to professionalize the screening process that occurred at the checkpoint.

However, when I asked about TSA’s work on Project Newton and the widely talked about desire of the agency to transition away from the use of Explosive Detection Systems (EDS) to screen checked baggage to AT-like systems, I received a brief response along the lines of – “we’re taking into account the best science has to offer.”  That not only struck me as short answer to a complex question but quite a different answer than ones given by agency officials in the past who have always unequivocally endorsed the use of EDS technology to screen checked baggage.  But now, with little public knowledge, TSA is spending millions of dollars on re-examining the current standard by engaging three national labs and forming a Blue Ribbon Commission to review its findings.  The results could change dramatically the way in which baggage is screened today.  To me this topic deserves robust discussion given the critical impact it could have on improvements made after 9/11 which gave the U.S. the best aviation security in the world.

I hope in the weeks ahead the agency begins to talk more openly about their plans in this regard and begins to talk to the aviation security technology industry as it will be the industry’s challenge and mandate to innovate to meet what may turn out to be new screening requirements.

As transition activities commence at DHS and its component agencies (such as TSA), I hope this issue is front and center when the team begins to review policies in the aviation security arena.

Tags: ,
Posted in Aviation and airport security | Comments

Whatever Happened to Telling the Truth?

Friday, November 21st, 2008

If Philip Morris released findings indicating that cigarettes are healthy, would you believe them? How about believing Sean Penn’s analysis of the war in Iraq, or Pamela Anderson’s take on the humane treatment of animals? Of course you wouldn’t! You’d consider the source and walk away. Why, then, do people put stock in anything the Center for American Progress (CAP) has to say regarding chemical security?

CAP, a left-of-center group that lobbies Congress to ban commonly held chemicals, has released findings indicating that security at water utilities housing gaseous chlorine is “inadequate.” They go on to say the lack of security at these utilities puts millions of Americans in continual danger. Wow! What a shocker! It doesn’t exactly sound right to me, but if CAP says it’s so, then it must be true. They would never toss the truth aside like A-Rod did Madonna in order to advance their own political agenda. Thank goodness for integrity.

CAP’s report entitled “Chemical Security 101” lists Metropolitan Water District of Southern California as one of the utilities that endangers the community it serves. Their assessment is interesting given that Metropolitan is a world-class leader in utility security. Aside from having cameras, fences and armed guards, Metropolitan brings their treatment chemicals in via secured rail, uses biometric security controls to safeguard access and has installed enough scrubbers to clean up after my three-year-old! Yet, despite spending tens of millions of dollars on security, CAP still finds Metropolitan’s security to be lacking. Weird, huh?

Yo, John Podesta and P.J. Crowley, take a five-minute break from leading the Obama transition to get your organization back in line. I understand promoting your cause, but if Metropolitan’s security measures aren’t up to snuff, then send the devil a telegram telling him it’s about to snow! I’m not surprised by CAP’s findings – seriously, did you think they were going to say anything to undercut their long held position? – but I am disappointed by their willingness to disregard facts in order to advance their cause.

Enough with the scare tactics and biases. Defend your position, but do it without distorting (or disregarding) the facts. Some utilities can adopt different treatment technologies, others can’t, and all systems should protect whatever it is they choose to use. It ain’t sexy, but it’s the truth. Hopefully that still counts for something.

Tags:
Posted in Critical Infrastructure | Comments

A few reasons why Napolitano is well-suited for DHS

Friday, November 21st, 2008

Governor Janet Napolitano brings several critical qualities to the role as the chief executive of the Department of Homeland Security. First, as governor of Arizona she is a chief executive. It can’t be emphasized enough how important executive management skills are for this job. You have two herculean tasks confronting you: one is the security mission itself, but the other is the ongoing management challenges that still must be addressed in this massive merger that created DHS.

Second, as a governor of Arizona in particular, she is going to be familiar with border security matters to a degree that few other non-operations leaders would be. Arizona has seen some of the worst violence in the country related to human smuggling operations, which often also involves weapons and drugs. She’s also seen the human suffering side of this struggle, with illegal immigrants dying in the Arizona deserts as they try to make it to safety across the border into the United States.

Third, as a former U.S. Attorney, she understands law enforcement from a comprehensive perspective. A prosecutor not only understands the unique law enforcement and security aspects related to this job, but also understands the larger communications and messaging requirements. That is, as a trial lawyer a prosecutor knows that evidence alone isn’t enough; evidence must be packaged in a clear and compelling way, in a way that the average member of a jury can digest. One-time bizarre Bush choice Bernie Kerik, for example, would have been a disaster as Homeland Security Secretary for so many reasons, but one that is often overlooked is that he lacked any kind of political (small p) skills. This is a guy who – on the record – referred to his critics as “cockroaches” who didn’t have the “balls” to confront him. He would have been a bull in the world’s largest china shop — which is Washington D.C., with all of its delicate egos in the various executive agencies and on Capitol Hill and in the media. The fantasy is that we need straight-talking leaders to come in and say what’s what. Problem is that “straight-talking” depends upon the ear of the beholder. A guy like Kerik would have been chewed up and spit out before he ever made it through the confirmation process … oh, wait. The Department of Homeland Security is one big lightening rod waiting to happen, and it needs leaders who understand and are capable of articulating its mission to the broader public in an effective way.

Speaking of political skills, the fourth reason why Napolitano is a good choice is that, as a governor and political figure, she understands the need to reach out to others, to build support, to compromise when appropriate. I am reminded of the Sprint-Nextel commercial where the fire chiefs come in to Congress and solve all the country’s problems in fifteen minutes. Ah, if it were that easy, the fire and police departments of New York City might actually get along with each other once in a while, let alone run the country. As head of DHS, Napolitano will need to develop alliances with state and local government leaders, with competing federal law enforcement and national security agencies, with state and local homeland security offices, with Congress – the list goes on. Rumsfeld was a “suffer-no-fools” kind of guy who failed to build alliances; look how well that worked out for him.

We probably shouldn’t get too far ahead of ourselves, though. If Eric Holder doesn’t make it through the vetting and confirmation process, then you could still see Napolitano moved to Justice.

Posted in Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration | Comments

Should FEMA become an independent agency?

Thursday, November 20th, 2008

Larry J. Gispert, president of the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) and director of Hillsborough County, Fla., Emergency Management, was quoted yesterday indicating IAEM’s position calling for the removal of FEMA from DHS.

As President-elect Obama’s team is in the midst of the arduous process of transitioning, issues about America’s emergency management capabilities deserve attention.  Focusing on issues of federal government organization and structure miss the more important point and squander an historic opportunity.  Ensuring America possesses the best national, and not simply federal, capability for managing emergencies and disasters transcends the borders of Washington and any federal agency.

The important discussion needed is how to empower state and local leaders, the private sector and most importantly, our citizens, to succeed in being less reliant on direct federal personnel and equipment for disaster aid when emergencies strike.  The federal government is not a limitless pit of people and equipment.  Continuing to build a national system that ignores this fact places us all in peril, especially for events that are catastrophic in nature.  There are roughly 4.0 million federal employees.  By contrast, there are at least 12.0 million state and local government workers.  Clearly the federal government has more helicopters and dollars, but without a doubt, state and local governments have a significantly higher number of fire trucks, dump trucks and front end loaders.  The key question is where and in what way do we invest our resources to have the most rapid and effective impact on disaster victims.  Will it be in materials that have to be moved across the nation before they reach people in need, or those that can come from next door?

A better debate might be about what investments are needed in state and local government in advance to better harness existing capabilities and – where needed -to develop new capacities.  Our disaster assistance programs are 20th Century relics that have been impeded by provisions designed to prevent fraud and abuse by a small minority. They no longer service the needs of 95% of government organizations and disaster victims who want to use them appropriately and follow the rules.

Maybe our time could be better spent finding out how we can transition disaster service delivery from being federal-centric to a state and local centric model – an especially important goal given these are the entities on the front line of delivering services every day.  Are our current models for government, individual and business disaster aid working? Let’s be clear.  This is not about unfunded mandates from Washington.  It’s about a bold new model of change in disaster aid where the resources support responsibilities – both pre-and post event – are centered at the front line in state and local government.  We just might be better served when authority and accountability are closest to the disaster victim.

Larry makes a good point about the need for the FEMA to get the support needed when and where needed.  This is not an issue of Cabinet status or independence.  Quite the contrary – this is an issue of empowerment.  For good or bad, there exists a “pecking order” in Washington.  Our national history includes instances of Cabinet officials were not overly effective.  By contrast, there are also examples of individuals who were not Cabinet officials but managed to be forces for positive change.  Those who succeed in the Executive Branch do so because it is well-known that they have the backing of the President and Congress to get things done.  Let’s have a discussion about emergency management in America.  But let’s make sure it’s the right discussion – about how to measurably advance a system built in the 20th Century so that it works as it should in the 21st Century.

Posted in Featured Feed | Comments

Breaking: Obama picks Napolitano for Homeland Security Secretary

Thursday, November 20th, 2008

CNN is reporting that multiple sources have confirmed that President-Elect Obama has selected Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to be head up the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Obama picks Napolitano for Homeland Security Secretary – CNN.com

President-elect Barack Obama’s top choice for secretary of homeland security is Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, multiple Democratic sources close to the transition told CNN on condition of anonymity.

Gov. Janet Napolitano is President-elect Barack Obama’s top choice for secretary of homeland security, sources say.

One source said he believed the final decision depends on the vetting of the Democratic governor, much like the selection of Eric Holder for attorney general.

Napolitano has long been rumored among Washington insiders to be on the short list for a Cabinet slot; the only question was whether it would be Attorney General or Homeland Security. However, the news that former Clinton Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder has been offered the AG slot raised the likelihood of border-state Governor Napolitano to land the Homeland position.

Napolitano will be the first woman to lead the Department, following Secretaries Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff under President Bush. She brings not only her direct experience governing the state of Arizona, one of the border states that has seen some of the most violent acitivity among immigrant and drug smuggling gangs, but she also brings credible law enforcement experience as a former U.S. Attorney and state Attorney General.

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

Chamber Event Highlights Differences, Agreements on Way Forward for Homeland Security

Thursday, November 20th, 2008

The Age of Unity may indeed be upon us. The right-leaning Heritage Foundation and left-leaning Center for American Progress appear to be in significant agreement on at least one thing: The need for a BRAC-like commission of independent voices to review the tangle of homeland security laws and mandates issued in the frantic years after 9/11.

The hallelujah-moment occurred during a panel hosted by the US Chamber of Commerce on the future of homeland security as President-Elect Obama gears up to take the reins in Washington.

James Carafano, Heritage’s homeland security expert, joined wits with Michael Signer, who is heading the Homeland Security Presidential Transition Initiative at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. The panel was moderated by Fran Townsend, who was President Bush’s chair for the White House Homeland Security Council and who now serves as a consultant to the Chamber.

The discussion itself was lively and a reminder that bipartisanship is not necessarily the result of good manners and better intentions. Carafano and Signer held very different views on a variety of issues (though Signer was more diplomatic in shading his differences while Carafano clearly relished dishing contrarian views). The differing worldviews of Carafano and Signer highlighted the fact that intelligent and knowledgeable individuals who hold strong views can disagree without necessarily being “partisan.” Which means the Era of Reform may not be as simple as a change of administrations.

For example, one evident difference between the panelists emerged over the fast-approaching deadlines related to scanning (physically scanning) 100 percent of all cargo that comes into the country. Barack Obama has indicated his support for 100-percent scanning, and one of his top homeland security advisers (P.J. Crowley, also a fellow at the Center for American Progress and who was originally slotted to join Carafano at the Chamber event) has even penned a white paper suggesting that the 100-percent scanning model needs to be applied more extensively to the air cargo industry.

Carafano, on the other hand, has assailed the idea of 100-percent scanning as unworkable. Indeed, at the forum he noted (I’m paraphrasing): “The number of vulnerabilities facing America is infinite. After we invest all of the resources towards this one unworkable solution, we’re still faced with infinity minus one.”

However, even Carafano acknowledged that the strong politics behind the 100-percent scanning mandate (it provides wonderful cover for members of Congress to go home to their districts and claim that they are doing something to protect the homeland) would make it very difficult to repeal this admittedly terrible piece of legislation.

While it was unclear whether Signer agreed with Carafano’s assessment of the value of 100-percent scanning, he did agree with Carafano’s larger point that there are a number examples of legislation pushed through Congress that are political props that add little to the security of the nation or even unintentinally undermine oursecurity. And he agreed that few members of Congress are likely to oppose such bad legislation because of the sheer political value they hold. Nobody wants to be the one to say “I’m opposed to making our country safer” even if they know that legislation in question does no such thing.

The resulting dialogue was entertaining, enlightening and may potentially serve as a catalyst for a much-needed reform model. Carafano laundry listed a slew of laws and regulations he felt were self-defeating or amount to costly examples of security theater (prompting Townsend to quip that she was glad she wasn’t leading the Homeland Security Council anymore) and suggested the need for a commission of independent auditors, similar to the 9/11 Commission, to review them.  The group would be made up of respected bipartisan authorities on homeland security to review all of the laws, mandates and regulations issued over the previous years and make recommendations on eliminating the bad ones.

Signer agreed that this might indeed be the most practical way forward to finding a way to reform laws that are politically popular but, in the end, have minimal or even counter-productive results. By creating a BRAC-like commission with a forced up-or-down vote, the politics are somewhat taken off the table – much in the same way that Congress was forced to vote up or down on the politically charged BRAC recommendations to close military bases.

Could this be the beginning of a beautiful relationship, Washington’s own Rick and Renault?

A cynic might suggest – isn’t that what Congress is supposed to do? But everybody’s a cynic – until they have to vote.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Management & Administration, Maritime & Seaport Security, Supply Chain Security, Transportation Security | Comments

Former Chief of ICE Steps Down as US Attorney in Manhattan

Wednesday, November 19th, 2008

In Manhattan, Departing U.S. Attorney Recalls the Spitzer Case – NYTimes.com

By BENJAMIN WEISER
New York Times, November 17, 2008

Of all the important cases handled by Michael J. Garcia, who for three years has held arguably the most prestigious United States attorney’s post in the country, perhaps the one that drew the most attention is the case he did not file.

In a wide-ranging interview on Monday, hours before he formally announced his resignation as federal attorney in Manhattan, Mr. Garcia defended his decision not to file criminal charges against Eliot Spitzer, who stepped down as governor in March after he became caught in a prostitution ring.

“I think at the end of the day that decision is the right decision,” said Mr. Garcia, who made a name pursuing corrupt officials at the state and city level. “And it’s justice in that case,” he added. “And I stand by it.”

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration | Comments

Questions Unanswered about New General Aviation Security Rule

Wednesday, November 19th, 2008

On Monday of this week, DHS released details on the Final Rule for private aircraft departing and arriving in the US.  Focused on ‘general aviation,’ which encompasses everything outside of military and commercial aircraft (private pilots, small charters, etc.), the new rule is designed to close the long-open gap of who is coming and going from these smaller aircraft.

As any post-9/11 flier knows, when buying your airline ticket you need to provide your full name as well as other pertinent information before you are ticketed or get to board your flight.  That has not been the case with general aviation where persons could come and go with little to no hassle or paperwork to impugn their movement.  This rule changes that.

As presented in Sec. Chertoff’s CSIS Remarks and in the Bloggers Roundtable in which he and TSA Administrator Kip Hawley participated at TSA Headquarters, the actions being taken are designed to proactively remove/reduce the ability of terrorists to use such aircraft as another means to do the homeland harm. Whether using it to deliver a bomb or other WMD, DHS is looking to this rule to help close one of the last major aviation vulnerabilities remaining in the homeland.

A key point the Secretary stressed in his CSIS speech and in his remarks to the assembled Bloggers was the fact that this vulnerability had not received more attention or concern than he thought it warranted and deserved.  Given the volatile debate we have seen over cargo container scanning, he’s right.  It doesn’t take a Hollywood screenwriter or videogame developer to come up with a scary scenario of a single aircraft unleashing horror upon the homeland.  We’ve lived that nightmare before and no one wants to line up to see the sequel.

It’s great to see the Department being proactive in taking another option off of the table for terrorists to use against us.  That’s what we want them to do.  We want them to be creative and imaginative about how the Bin Laden bunch might use our open society against us.  The actions they are taking are the direct converse of the “failure of imagination” that the 9/11 Commission identified in its final report.  While it is impossible to identify every means, mechanism and method by which terrorists might utilize to unleash hell upon us, it’s a good sign when the Department’s leadership is able to point out an avenue that they are looking to close off to keep us safe.

What remained unanswered in the Secretary’s CSIS remarks and the Bloggers session that followed was: What does an action like this cost, and who pays for it?

How much does this Final Rule cost the general aviation industry?  How much does this cost the private pilot, or the charter company that operates as a small business?  Every action we undertake in homeland security, no matter what it is, costs someone, somewhere something.  The majority of the time those costs are placed on the private sector who has to find some where to pay for it.

Nowhere in the issued Fact Sheet on the Rule, the Press Release announcing it, the Fact Sheet on General Aviation or in the Secretary’s remarks does it detail what this rule costs or how we are paying for it.

We know that since 9/11, TSA has spent in excess of $40 billion on aviation security efforts.  Many of these costs have been covered by the 9/11 ticket fees/surcharges; DHS’ annual appropriation as well as the fees and costs that the nation’s airports, airline industry and passengers have paid.  There is no doubt that because of these expenditures we are safer flying public today.

TSA for all of the criticism and griping it gets for making us take off our shoes at the check-in line and put our deodorant and toothpaste in a clear one-quart bag deserves enormous credit for its work on all of our behalf.  What bothers me though is our lack of acknowledgement or understanding of how we pay for these actions; the impacts of these costs; and our (lack of) willingness to discuss such costs.

In the Q&A period following Secretary Chertoff’s CSIS remarks, not one question from the assembled attendees or mainstream reporters asked, “How much does this cost?” or “How are we paying for this?”

When I had the opportunity to ask those two questions to Secretary Chertoff and Administrator Hawley in the Bloggers Roundtable, they seemed surprised such questions were being asked.  Neither Secretary Chertoff nor Administrator Hawley had the answer to either of the questions.

While I don’t expect either of these gentlemen to have every number committed to memory given everything that they have on their minds, I was surprised that neither of them, nor the Department-issued materials, did anything to communicate the costs of these actions nor how we pay for these new steps to safeguard the nation.

I do not doubt the actions they are undertaking for general aviation are worthwhile and necessary, but in an era where our financial resources are becoming more and more constricted, we need to be upfront about what our homeland security actions cost and how we will pay for them.  We’ve not done that with this rule – at least not in the actions of this week.

I guess when you compare the costs of this Final Rule and its implementation to the ever-growing costs of bailing out bad mortgages, banking and insurance giants and US automakers, it’s just small change. Unfortunately, all of the small change (the costs of rules such as this) begins to add up after a while.

If we don’t start talking about these costs and acknowledge their impact (particularly on small businesses and individual citizens), we will never fully comprehend the long-term costs of our actions (loss of businesses, small/regional airports, individual liberties, etc.).

Life teaches us all that there will always be a day when the bill comes due.  Prior to getting that bill, we owe it to ourselves and the generations that follow to ask at the outset of actions such as this one (and every other one to come after it): “How are we going to pay for it?” and “What’s it going to cost?”

No one has answered these questions yet on the new General Aviation Rule, but I hope they will.  We deserve answers because we’re the ones who get stuck with the bill.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Transportation Security | Comments

A New Construct for Corporate Security

Wednesday, November 19th, 2008

Corporate America has intensified its efforts to detect, prevent, and mitigate terrorist attacks.  As part of that effort, many corporations, in good faith, hire outside consultants to review and make recommendations on ways to improve security.  However, a company’s best efforts to protect its facilities and provide a safe and secure working environment for its employees may ultimately result in increased liability.

While hiring a consultant to assess a company’s security program is an essential tool, a consultant’s recommendations, if not heeded, can come back to haunt management.  The findings and recommendations of security consultants are sufficient to put a company on notice of potential threats, regardless of how remote those threats may be.  A company that fails to take measures to remediate a potential threat could be subject to significant liability should that vulnerability ever be exposed.

If a breach of security results in loss and subsequent litigation, consultant reports will be used to demonstrate that the company was on notice of its vulnerabilities and that the event that transpired was reasonably foreseeable and preventable.  Consequently, a company and its management could be held liable for not addressing the findings and recommendations of their security consultants.

Recent court decisions have expanded the definition of what is reasonably foreseeable in terms of security.  In Nash v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the NY State Appellate Division upheld a jury finding that the owner of the World Trade Center was 68% responsible for damages that occurred in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  That finding was based on security consultant reports that were produced in the litigation and that warned of certain threats that the Port Authority failed to address.  The court stated that the absence of previous attacks did not absolve the Port Authority of its duty as a commercial landlord to use reasonable measures to “minimize the risk of harm from criminality upon its premises.”  The court concluded that the attack was reasonably foreseeable because security consultant reports, which were provided to the Port Authority years earlier, warned of the threat of a car bomb in the World Trade Center parking garage.

In In re September 11 Litigation, a federal court in New York, found that it was reasonably foreseeable that terrorists could highjack a commercial airliner and use it as a weapon against American landmarks.  Based on this finding, the court held that the defendant airline companies could be found liable for not taking adequate security precautions addressing these foreseeable events.  The court also held that highjacking is a predictable event and that it was reasonably expected that an airline should foresee the use of an airplane as a weapon.  The court concluded that defendants should have been able to make the connection based on the history of highjackings and the willingness of terrorists to kill themselves in the process of carrying out an attack.

These court decisions are emblematic of why it is no longer possible to take measures and plan solely against the types of threats and dangers that are common or typical.  Courts will hold companies liable for not making the extra connections.  It appears that the terror attacks that we have suffered on our soil and the frequent attacks that we witness overseas, coupled with the imagination of Hollywood screen writers, make nearly any kind of terrorist attack reasonably foreseeable.  If you see it on television or in the movie theater, it’s reasonably foreseeable and you must take the appropriate steps to guard against it.

Corporations must continue to use security consultants to address all hazards, natural and man-made; however, court decisions make it clear that a new construct is in order.  As part of business continuity compliance review, outside legal counsel can retain security consultants to assist in efforts to use standards and best practices as benchmarks to assess a company’s compliance and provide relevant legal advice.  When an attorney is responsible for investigating and advising on business continuity and security issues, that advice is protected by the attorney-client privilege and, therefore, will not be discoverable in future litigation.

Not every recommendation given by a consultant will be feasible or even necessary to ensure the protection of a company’s assets and employees.  By keeping this information privileged, it ensures that a company is not faced with an arsenal of deficiencies merely for having the forethought to hire a consultant in the attempt to better secure its facilities.  Companies should not be penalized for taking the extra step to ensure the safety of their employees and the public.

A company will gain little from sentiments of “should have, could have, and would have” when stockholders are demanding explanations for the lack of prudence in the manner security evaluations were addressed.  The use of an attorney is not indicative of a company’s desire to avoid implementing security measures.  Rather, it will help ensure that, under the “no good deed goes unpunished” category, a company’s efforts to improve its security program through third-party review and validation is not ultimately used against it.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Featured Feed | Comments

UPDATE: Ryan Seacrest as Next DHS Secretary?

Wednesday, November 19th, 2008

The list narrows … Whatever long-shot chances Sen. Joe Lieberman had for a olive-branch appointment to lead DHS have grown considerably longer now that Lieberman has been allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee — a move made possible by President-Elect Obama’s endorsement.

Moreover, with Eric Holder allegedly Obama’s selection for Attorney General, Janet Napolitano just moved up on the short list of nominees for Homeland Security. The former US attorney and border-state governor is widely viewed as certain to land a top spot in the Obama administration. The question had been whether she would land at DOJ or DHS. However, there are other candidates on the short list who bring more direct national security experience, such as New York’s Ray Kelly or Democratic Wise Man Lee Hamilton. There is also the potential for a surprise candidate like Sen. Susan Collins, a bipartisan pick that would open another potential seat for the Democratic majority if she were to vacate it.

However, a new name has suddenly surfaced in celebrity host Ryan Seacrest.

We hope you enjoy our contributor’s thoughts and will continue to follow what our contributor’s have to say about who President-elect Obama will pick for Secretary of Homeland Security.

RICH COOPER
1. Jim Turner – Former US Rep of Texas who served as ranking member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security and Ranking Member of the Terrorism Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. He’s a Blue Dog Democrat with tremendous respect on both sides of the political aisles who understands the strategic threats and remedying means to address them.

2. Ray Kelly – Commissioner, NYPD, former Commissioner of US Customs Service and Under Secretary of the Treasury, retired USMC Officer. He led the recovery of the NYPD post 9/11 and developed the largest intelligence network in the world, with ‘street-centric’ strategies to safeguard the number one of terrorist target – New York City. He has been an ardent champion of improved information sharing with local law enforcement so as to aid anti-terrorism and counter-terrorism efforts.

3. Janet Napolitano – Governor, State of Arizona, former State Attorney General and former US Attorney. The border state governor has first hand experience on the costs, implications and consequences of a porous US Border with Mexico. She was one of the first elected leaders to call for the deployment of the National Guard to support Border Security improvements. Her experience in dealing with these issues, combined with State Attorney General and US Attorney experience make her exceptionally skilled at dealing with the legal and operational frameworks that homeland security has to operate.

I’d love to see LAPD Chief, Bill Bratton take the job but he’s stated in several forums that he doesn’t want it and can do more from his current position to advance homeland security.

STEWART VERDERY
1. James Lee Witt – Great experience in the part of the homeland job – preparedness and response – most important to his party.  Plus might solve the take FEMA out of DHS issue if he’s in charge of all of it.

2. Susan Collins – There has to be one qualified Republican in the cabinet and she is both. Plus would open up a Senate seat for a Democratic pickup.

3. Tim Roemer – 9/11 qualifications and well-connected on the Hill.

4. Jamie Gorelick – 9/11 qualifications and plugged in with Center for American Progress transition effort.

5. Wesley Clark – Military angle.

6. Ray Kelly – Easily qualified and knows parts of DHS (Customs, Secret Service) already.

7. Rudy Guiliani – If they REALLY want to be bipartisan…

8. Fran Townsend – Great experience and connections on both sides of the aisle

9. Jim Turner – Safe, qualified pick.

10. Democratic Governor with a Democratic Lieutenant Governor to replace him/her – i.e. not Napolitano or Kaine.

GEORGE FORESMAN
1. Janet Napolitano – Though she was wants to be Attorney General, but in my book, is one of the few elected officials with all of the right credibility to do the job.

2. Lee Hamilton – Need I say more? He would bring some gravitas to the position.

3. Bill Richardson – Governor Richardson knows DC and would be a help on immigration issues, along with his understanding of intelligence issues.

4. Jon Corzine – A sharp guy and that has nothing to prove. New Jersey has done some unique work and he would understand

5. Richard Danzig – Especially if Gates is asked to stay for a while.

6. Joe Liberman – Sen. Liberman shows the bipartisan-healing approach and that has the possibility to open up the Senate to addressing the challenge for the Democratic leadership regarding what to do with him.  Further, his real Jefferson approach to create unity while protecting one’s back is important.

7. Chuck Robb – He brings state and local credibility with a whole bunch of private sector and intel perspectives.

8. Bill Bratton – Even though he does not want the job, he would take it.

There are optics here. The DHS portfolio is broad. It has many policy twists and turns – has a decidedly state and local as well as private sector importance. A state and/or local personality would be good, and given the Katrina experience (and depending on who they pick for FEMA) the country needs someone sharp. Danzig and Liberman offer a wealth of pluses. Richardson could help with the immigration issue. The challenge may be to find someone who has street credibility, policy understanding and is operationally astute.

Robert Liscouski
1. Randy Beers

2. Jim Loy

CHRIS BATTLE
1. The 9/11 Commissioners: Lee Hamilton or Tom Kean. Former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton was one of Obama’s top advisers on homeland security and national security issues during the campaign. Along with Republican Tom Kean, he co-chaired the 9/11 Commission. He had a long and respected tenure as Chairman of the Committee on International Relations in Congress. The question is whether Hamilton, at this stage in his career and life (he’s in his seventies), would want to take on one of the most demanding and thankless jobs in Washington. Kean would be a bipartisan choice but there appears to be little indication he is under consideration.

2. The Top Cops: Ray Kelly and Bill Bratton have both proven themselves to be innovative leaders in law enforcement on the national level. Indeed, Kelly has built himself a mini-Department of Homeland Security within the New York Police Department. He also understand DHS, having formerly run the U.S. Customs (which was divided into ICE and CBP at DHS). Working alongside Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Bratton turned New York City’s crime-ridden streets around with unprecedented innovation. And now he’s helping turn Los Angeles around. Bratton has stated publicly he does not want the job, but hasn’t every individual who’s ever been tossed into the arena of public speculation for such jobs claimed he or she was happy and not interested? (It’s bad form to want a job too much.)

3. The Shadow Secretaries: Gary Hart and Warren Rudman have made post-political careers writing and speaking about homeland and national security issues. The two co-chaired a Council on Foreign Relations task force sounding the alarm that America is unprepared for another attack. Like Hamilton, Rudman is getting up there in years and may not have the energy necessary to take on the role of leading DHS. Gary Hart, however, is plenty young, plenty ambitious and, unlike Rudman, a Democrat.

4. The Bipartisan Nominees: Joe Lieberman or Susan Collins. Here’s a chance for Obama to show he is serious about a post-partisan Washington. The one-time Democrat Joe Lieberman very publicly backed his long-time friend in the Senate, John McCain, against Obama and would have been a leading choice for DHS Secretary for a McCain Administration. His foreign policy credentials are unquestionable, and as Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Reform Committee, he helped author the legislation creating DHS. Besides being a truly remarkable show of Above-the-Partisanship statesmanship, it would also save the Senate Democrats from having to decide what to do with Lieberman, since Majority Leader Reid has made clear he doesn’t want to let Lieberman keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. Another bipartisan choice would be Lieberman’s Republican colleague on the committee, Sen. Susan Collins. And it might be a smart political move for whip-counting Democrats in the Senate. Collins barely fended of a strong challenger from Democrat Tom Allen. Should Collins vacate the seat, Allen would have the upper hand in a special election.

5. The Slightly Misplaced Selection: John Brennan. A more likely choice for National Director of Intelligence, though he may have to compete with House Intel Committee Chairman Jane Harman; however, watch for Brennan to be slotted somewhere senior in the Obama national security team.

6. The Good-But Nominee: James Lee Witt. Widely praised for his tenure as head of FEMA during the Clinton Administration, but Witt has since run into controversy over allegations of profiting off of Hurricane Katrina as a consultant. Such allegations could prove unnecessarily risky, providing an opening to hostile questions and possible partisan grandstanding during a Senate confirmation hearing.

7. The Consensus Choice: Janet Napolitano. This Governor andformer US Attorney campaigned hard for Obama and helped win over women voters who felt alienated after Hillary Clinton’s loss. Obama will reward her somehow. I would suspect she’s more interested in AG, though.

8. The Conservative Blogosphere’s Heckling Choice: Bill Ayers. Who knows more about terrorism in America than Ayers, goes the joke.

US News & World Report
US News lays out its own speculation on the Obama Cabinet, placing Richard Clarke in the running, along with some of the other familiar names.

Hot Air blog

Hot Air comments on the US News picks: “Richard Clarke at Homeland Security: Actually, the line-up there looks decent, with Tim Roemer, Raymond Kelly, Bill Bratton, and James Lee Witt on the list.  Witt’s the weakest of the five, and Clarke was part of the team that failed pre-9/11.  Bratton might make the best selection, but I wonder if Obama might appoint Joe Lieberman instead to resolve the standoff in the Senate?”

UPI.com

Shaun Waterman, UPI’s Homeland and National Security Editor, shares his analysis on the implications of President-elect Obama’s pick for DHS Secretary and adds a new name to the mix: current Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen.

New York Times

Think you have the perfect cabinet members for the Obama administration? Try your hand at NYTimes.com’s “If You Were President …”. This interactive survey allows you to pick your own cabinet memebrs, see who other readers are picking, and even write in your own candidate.

Be sure to check back often, we will be updating our contributor’s opinions.

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

Lieberman for ‘Survivor’

Wednesday, November 19th, 2008

With the decision over the future of Sen. Joe Lieberman’s future as the Chairman of the Senate’s Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee finalized, the road to confirmation of the next Secretary of DHS is cleared of one of the biggest potholes it could have experienced.  The fact that the Senate Democratic leadership settled this as quickly as they did is a tremendous credit to them.  By making sure the road ahead for the prospective DHS nominee is clear (baring some unforeseen problem on the nominee’s part (aka Bernie Kerik problems), the Obama Team can continue to move forward with the Transition that has the eyes of much of Washington watching.

Credit for this is clear – President-Elect Obama.  Showing his leadership skills and living up to his word of wanting to move past partisanship to get things done, his willingness to call up Sen. Reid and other Senate Democrats and say, ‘Let it go,’ is a tremendous act of political graciousness that has not been seen in this town for a very long time.

I don’t think there is anyone in Washington who after seeing Sen. Lieberman actively campaign with Sen. McCain or hearing his speech at the Republican National Convention in September thought he had a chance of keeping the Chairman’s gavel if Sen. Obama won the election.  Whether it be Senate staffers, political and media pundits, or the K Street crowd, the conventional wisdom was that he was a ‘goner.’

“Put a fork in him, he’s done.”

My how things have changed.  Politics has always been the art of the possible and yesterday’s restoration of Sen. Lieberman as the Senate’s Homeland Security Chair proves it.

It’s a decision that I am very pleased to see come to pass.  Lieberman’s stewardship and leadership of homeland security issues is deep and substantive and to toss those capabilities aside for campaign rhetoric and political payback would be tragic – not just for Senate Democrats and DHS but the entire Senate and nation.  I applaud the Senate Democrats for making a good choice in returning the gavel to his hands.  Since we had the post-9/11 world thrust upon us, Sen. Lieberman’s voice and insight have been constants and we’re better for it.

His ‘partnership’ with former Committee Chair and now Ranking Member Sen. Susan Collins of Maine in working these issues has also been a model of civility and cooperation that is rarely seen anywhere in Congress.  I’m glad it will be around as we go through the beginning of the new Administration and its stewardship of the homeland.

And if Mark Burnett and CBS Television ‘Survivor’ Team ever decide to assemble a cast of Congressional Members to be left on a remote island to fend for themselves amongst the elements of bugs, back-biting and bickering, my money is on Sen. Lieberman.

He’s proven once again that he is the ultimate ‘Survivor’ in the most hostile of jungles – Politics.

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

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