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

Archive for the ‘Border Security’ Category

Questions to Secretary Napolitano About Using Predator UAVs for Border Enforcement

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

The announcement Monday afternoon by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano that Predator B unmanned aerial vehicles will begin patrolling the skies over American’s Southwest border, funded in part by the latest $600 million infusion of cash from Congress, ought to raise some very serious questions about the manner in which increasingly limited homeland security funds are being spent.

Unfortunately for the American taxpayers, and the Border Patrol agents who are the alleged beneficiaries of this largess, it does not appear that those questions were asked before the earmark occurred or even before the current deployment was announced. And in my opinion, DHS continues to waste money on a UAV program that is overly expensive and grossly inefficient when compared to alternative approaches.

In its proper place, the Predator UAV can play a significant role in helping American warfighters. I feel certain that its manufacturer, General Atomics, can make a strong case for its use in armed conflict zones, and there are certainly several of those along the US-Mexican border, if current press reports are to be believed. I submit, however, that there are better alternatives that would achieve better results.

But for the single-mindedness of the head of CBP Air and Marine Operations, who reportedly has rejected any suggestions that DHS consider the capability of other, less expensive and more flexible unmanned aerial platforms (much less the additional capability of more manned airplanes or helicopters), I have serious doubts that a reasonable person would deploy Predators for border surveillance purposes.

Yet Congressional myopia combined with DHS and CBP stubbornness has created a situation where alternative approaches seem to be ignored – a strange position to take for current DHS leadership in light of their other public announcements about reliance on alternative analyses of the proper “mix” of technologies and personnel for border enforcement and a rhetorical “efficiency review.”

OK, so hypocrisy is not illegal in Washington DC, or anywhere else for that matter. Still, it would be nice if DHS would not engage in charades. If DHS wants to deploy Predator B UAVs, then at least admit that Predators are far more expensive than almost every other alternative – or make the case why this is a better choice. Thus far, the explanations are lacking, and this should not be allowed to continue.

When Congress returns, or whenever GAO gets around to it, Secretary Napolitano should be required publicly to address these questions, at a minimum:

What is the operational cost (including personnel) of flying one Predator B UAV for a 24 hour shift and how does that compare with the cost of operating other aircraft in the CBP Air and Marine Operations existing fleet?
How many people does it take to operate the Predator UAV for a single mission?
How many people does it take to operate a Cessna manned aircraft for a single mission?
What additional capabilities does the Predator B UAV give to the Border Patrol that a manned Cessna aircraft does not provide?
What additional capabilities do other CBP aircraft give to the Border Patrol that the Predator B does not?
What is the cost of acquisition and a full year’s operation of one Predator B UAV, and what other UAV platforms could DHS acquire and operate to achieve the same or greater level of detection as a Predator B?
For the cost of acquisition and a full year’s operation of one Predator B UAV, how many manned aircraft could DHS acquire and operate to achieve the same or greater level of detection as a Predator B?
For the cost of acquisition and a full year’s operation of one Predator B UAV, how many Mobile Surveillance radar units could be acquired and operated by Border Patrol agents?
What are the reasons that CBP has rejected the use of smaller UAVs for border detection and enforcement purposes?
What are the approximate costs of UAVs that could be launched and operated by a single Border Patrol agent in the field?
What is the annual cost savings, if any, to CBP by operating Predator B UAVs instead of other aircraft types?

I am sure there many other questions that could be asked – and I hope they are. These are the ones that immediately came to my mind.

The choice to deploy the Predator B UAV for border enforcement purposes is a mystery that needs to be addressed – unless effectiveness, efficiency and cost are not important these days to the Department of Homeland Security.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland State & Local, Immigration & Visa Policy, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Science & Technology | Comments

Breaking: US investigates potential terrorist test run

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

The news of two men arrested in Amsterdam on suspicion of terrorism is making its way across the news wire. Here’s the latest from AP.

US investigates potential terrorist test run – Associated Press

Two men arrested in Amsterdam may have been conducting a dry run for a potential terrorist attack, U.S. officials said Tuesday after a cell phone taped to a Pepto-Bismol bottle and a knife and box cutters were found in one of the men’s luggage.

U.S. investigators are pursuing leads in Detroit, Birmingham, Ala.; and Memphis, Tenn., according to officials speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing investigation.

The arrests come at a time of heightened alert just days before the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

On Sunday, authorities found the suspicious items — a cell phone taped to a Pepto-Bismol bottle, multiple cell phones and watches taped together, and a knife and box cutter — in one of the men’s checked luggage in Virginia. The man and his luggage were headed to separate international destinations, which also raised concerns.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Transportation Security, counterterrorism | Comments

Electronic System for Travel Authorization Supports U.S. Security

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

On August 6, 2010, in accordance with the requirements of the Travel Promotion Act (TPA), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced an interim final rule establishing a fee for the use of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). The total fee, which goes into effect on September 8, 2010, is $14. Ten dollars will go towards funding the activities of the Corporation for Travel Promotion that is being created under the framework of the TPA. The remainder will be used by CBP to operate and maintain the system.

An approved ESTA is required for all individuals traveling under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). ESTA approvals are generally valid for multiple entries into the United States for up to two years or until the applicant’s passport expires, whichever comes first. (Note: travelers who apply for ESTA approvals before September 8 can avoid the $14 fee, as CBP does not require the individual to have immediate travel plans to apply.)

Leaving aside whether the fee will have its intended effect of boosting tourism, the successful implementation of ESTA is a critical security feature of the modernized VWP. It provides DHS with the capability to conduct both advance and recurrent vetting of individual VWP travelers against appropriate law enforcement and security databases. It therefore helps the Department determine whether any risk exists in permitted travel to the United States. Currently, no airline will permit a VWP traveler to board if he or she does not have an approved ESTA. As a result, the ESTA compliance rate has reached 99 percent. In short, ESTA has enhanced the security of the United States.

The VWP advances security in other ways as well. VWP participants are required to be close partners in security and law enforcement matters. In a networked world, efforts to guard against terrorism while enhancing travel and trade depend upon the type of close collaboration and cooperation that is the hallmark of the VWP. By insisting on high standards for information sharing, border security, and travel documents, the VWP helps to prevent travel by terrorists and transnational criminals.

The VWP also has significant public diplomacy and economic benefits. Since its inception, it has fostered better relations between the United States and participating countries. Increasing the flow of business people and tourists through open and secure travel provides a foundation on which close foreign policy, commercial and cultural ties can flourish.

By contrast, the often cumbersome and expensive visa process can impede significant personal as well as commercial exchange. Large numbers of potential visitors – from Latin America, for example – may be discouraged from traveling to the United States by this process. Similarly, Americans may be discouraged from visiting Latin American countries because of the reciprocal visa requirements imposed on them.

VWP designation decisions are made on a country-by-country basis and each country must qualify on its own merits. Nevertheless, interested countries from Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East should consider joining together to press their respective cases for inclusion in the program. Such a coalition – comprised of both governments and interested business groups, such as chambers of commerce – could present a compelling argument on security, economic and public diplomacy grounds for an expanded VWP.

Posted in Border Security, International, Science & Technology, counterterrorism | Comments

Immigration Report Shows Continued DHS Enforcement Successes

Friday, August 20th, 2010

This week’s release of the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics report “Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2009” is a must read for those interested in immigration enforcement. The report sheds an interesting light on the federal government’s argument against portions of Arizona law, S.B. 1070, and also contains some positive long-term metrics that demonstrate the sustained work of law enforcement in this area.

Consider Table 4 of the FY 2009 report, which details ICE’s progress in removing criminal aliens. The report shows that ICE removed 128,345 criminal aliens in FY 2009. This is a substantial improvement over FY 2008, consistent with the agency’s commitment to the Secure Communities program and its 287(g) partnerships.

The report gives a breakdown of the types of convictions these criminal aliens had, including convictions for dangerous drugs, immigration-related offenses, assault, larceny, fraud, burglary, sexual assault and family offenses. Of note for FY 2009, the second most common criminal conviction was “traffic offenses,” accounting for over 20,000 (15.9%) of ICE’s criminal alien removals. This is new. Traffic offenses did not comprise a separate category in the FY 2006, 2007 or 2008 Immigration Enforcement Reports, but were merely listed in the catch-all “other” category, which primarily includes less serious crimes, as well as crime categories that represent less than 2% of the total removals.

With traffic offenses taken out of the “other crimes” category for FY 2009, one would expect the “other crimes” percentage to be significantly down. It is not – removals attributed to the “other” crimes category are nearly the same for this year and previous years. This suggests that in FY 2009, ICE had a significant spike in removals for traffic convictions or “other” minor offenses when compared to previous years, rather than a spike based on removals for more serious criminal categories.

Arizonans take note. Given the Administration’s position on the Arizona law, it is remarkable that broken tail lights, speeding and other minor crimes appear to be such a significant part of the Administration’s criminal alien initiative. How can the federal government criticize Arizona for wanting to process criminal aliens who have been arrested for “minor” traffic offenses when its own statistics for criminal alien removals demonstrate that the Administration has ramped up removals for the same offenses?

In the litigation on S.B. 1070, the district court’s opinion relied heavily on the federal government’s declarations and assurances regarding federal priorities and targeting of significant criminal offenders. Unfortunately, those assurances appear to be inconsistent with actual statistics, at least for FY 2009.

Even with these inconsistencies, however, DHS has much to highlight in the FY 2009 report. The report reveals some significant positive metrics, including an odd couple of successes: fewer CBP apprehensions and more ICE apprehensions and removals. Moreover, the long-term data is worth analyzing. When you compare the removals in fiscal year 2001 to the removals in fiscal year 2009, for example, it is apparent that the government is making a concerted, longer-term effort to address the problem of illegal immigration.

The American public’s view that the government does not have a long-term commitment to enforcement has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks to immigration reform. As the FY 2009 report demonstrates, however, the federal government has removed more individuals for seven consecutive years. That’s more than a blip – these results demonstrate some progress and a bipartisan commitment to starting to secure our borders after the neglect of the late 1990s.

These results have not been enough for the citizens of Arizona and many other states, but they do show progress. DHS should use the FY 2009 report to help convey all that has been done.

Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland State & Local, Immigration & Visa Policy, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration | Comments

Arizona Worksite Statistics an indicator of ICE Audits

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

By Dawn M. Lurie and Kevin Lashus

Interestingly, Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Office of Investigations (OI) in Arizona released a snap-shot of its weekly operations. No other ICE office has provided such statistics. It is clear that politics played a significant role in prompting the release of this snap-shot, considering the amount of scrutiny Arizona’s SB1070 has undergone in the past couple of weeks and with mid-term elections two months away. Regardless of ICE’s motives, the report provides evidence of the increasing worksite enforcement activity affecting employers. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been following our postings and alerts.

OI has twenty-six Special Agents in Charge (SACs) at its principal field offices throughout the United States. These offices are responsible for the administration and management of all investigative and enforcement activities within the office’s geographic boundaries. The Arizona snap-shot of the enforcement activity in one Area of Responsibility (AOR) provides insight into the kind of activity being experienced in other AORs throughout the country.

The Arizona report definitely supports the proposition that ICE is aggressively executing its mission. Administrative and criminal investigations have resulted in significant numbers of successful criminal prosecutions, civil monetary penalties, administrative arrests, and civil forfeitures.

But what employers should be focused on are the details of the report that relate to OI’s worksite enforcement and how those statistics may be interpreted alongside the 25 additional offices in the country to provide a clearer picture of audit activity and stepped-up administrative efforts. The report states that:

ICE audited 59 Arizona businesses, resulting in the inspection of 21,587 Forms I-9. Of the 21,587 Forms I-9 inspected, agents determined that 2,177 employees presented “Suspect Documents.” 25 businesses were served a Warning Notice and 23 were served a Notice of Compliance based upon the results of the Form I-9 audits. ICE is currently preparing several Notices of Intent to Fine for other business[es] audited in FY10. In FY09, ICE fined six Arizona companies with fine notices totaling more than $270,000.

Some may be questioning whether the snap-shot is representative of national trends: we are of the opinion that it is. At the recent ICE training, the enforcement division reported fine assessments greater than $4M against 164 employers throughout the country and noted that 147 employers have been criminally convicted or cited with worksite violations during the calendar year. With increases to the forensic auditor core and a new centralized Auditing Center opening up to assist with administrative reviews, ICE is poised to increase administrative investigations in an effort to continue to remind employers that the culture of compliance is something to take very seriously.

The number of criminal investigations is also surely to rise. The recent statistics are certainly impressive, but we are still willing to wager that the agency will issue another round of Notices of Inspection (NOI) to employers in the next month or so. The SACs with larger resources will certainly be held responsible for more of these anticipated audits; we guesstimate another 500 to 750 audits will be announced. The number of NOIs may exceed 2300 by the end of 2010. Companies located in the larger SAC jurisdictions including Atlanta, New York, Washington DC, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Phoenix and San Francisco are among the favored for the clusters in numbers.

While the metrics for audit selection are not disclosed, ICE appears not to be discriminatory, and clearly each SAC has a generous amount of latitude, both in selecting companies for audits as well as for settlements. Generally, investigations are based on leads, targets and other factors. The required number of audits for each SAC will vary with the size of the AOR, the number of auditors assigned to the SAC and those internal guidelines that ICE utilizes. No quotas, of course, but reports are publicized within the agency and “stats” are reviewed, need we say more? While we also have plenty of ideas on those metrics, nothing is concrete.

Folks, to be clear, this was not discussed during the IMAGE conference last week. But alas, we are not true psychics – fair warning was given to companies by Senior Special Agent Todd Johnson and other ICE Representatives: take action, review your I-9-related compliance and institute a compliance plan NOW. Taking such corrective action after ICE serves an NOI just doesn’t count as much.

What was not discussed during last week’s meetings with ICE, but what is identified in the snap-shot, is the number of “Suspect Documents” identified during the inspections – 2,177 out of the 21,587 Forms I-9 inspected. “Suspect Documents” is a phrase that relates to the number of employees who have presented documents to employers that cannot be verified by the government without further review; often, fraudulent documents are in play.

Upon receipt of a Notice of Suspect Documents, employers are required to request alternative documents, and if the issue cannot be resolved, they are referred to ICE. While a number of Suspect Documents issues can be resolved, the vast majority of workers receiving such notices are eventually terminated due to their inability to provide valid work authorization. Based on rough math, SAC Arizona has inspected employers with workforces that are comprised of almost 10 percent unauthorized individuals.

Now, some may argue that the number is already high and reflects the composition of a workforce in a border state. That may be the case. But, even if the average is closer to 5 percent, even the most compliance-driven employers will have some exposure to “knowingly hire” and “continuing to employ” allegations.

What should employers do? Be proactive. At a minimum, review and correct your I-9s before ICE does. Go further, take the Arizona statistics seriously – implement standard operating procedures and trainings designed to improve immigration compliance, employ comprehensive identity and work eligibility verification mechanisms, and consider rolling-out verification compliance software as well, to establish a “good faith defense.”

Now is the time to consider implementing best practices. Enforcement activity will continue to increase prior to the adoption of minor, let alone true, comprehensive reform.

Posted in Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Featured Feed, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Immigration & Visa Policy, International, Law Enforcement | Comments

Congress has already passed a law allowing state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration

Friday, July 30th, 2010

This morning I published a piece in US News & World Report about the controversy over Arizona’s immigration law and the fight between the federal and state governments. The federal government asserts that Arizona is usurping the exclusive authority of the federal government to enforce immigration law.

To me, what has been curiously missing from the debate is that back in 1996 Congress passed a federal law giving state and local governments (and their law enforcement organizations) the right to enforce immigration law.

On the one hand the federal government is suing Arizona for authorizing local law enforcement to coordinate with federal authorities regarding illegal immigration; on the other hand, the federal government is simultaneously requesting such assistance from local governments.

Below is a brief excerpt. To read the full article, go to: Congress Passed an Arizona-Like Immigration Law in 1996 – Chris Battle (usnews.com)

Back in 1996 it was time to get tough on immigration, and an interesting little law known as 287g was passed. This federal law deemed it appropriate for state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration law.

Want to know what 287g says? Well, just read the law in Arizona. Yes, that law. The one causing protests in the streets of Phoenix, hysteria on cable talk shows and confusion in the courts. The one that empowers state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration law.

Posted in Border Security, Civil liberties & Privacy, Congress, Politics & PR, Featured Feed, Immigration & Visa Policy | Comments

E-passports Key to Border and Travel Security

Monday, July 19th, 2010

A top-rated lacrosse team representing the Iroquois Confederacy apparently won’t be competing in the world championship of the sport their ancestors helped invent. The United Kingdom—which is hosting the tournament—has indicated it will deny entry to the team because its members are not traveling on U.S. passports. The players are understandably upset that despite years of training and commitment, they won’t be able to compete for a championship. In addition, the team members and their supporters have made this an issue of Iroquois identity. However, the British authorities are correct that the decision is a matter of border and travel security rather than Iroquois sovereignty. Iroquois passports, which contain hand-written elements, simply aren’t as secure as the latest generation of U.S. passports.

To terrorists and other criminals, travel documents are as valuable as weapons. Altered passports and visas, or genuine documents obtained fraudulently, allow bad actors to cross borders in the course of planning or carrying out operations. Recognizing this, many countries in recent years have implemented higher security standards for these travel documents so they are considerably more difficult to counterfeit or for an impostor to use should it be lost or stolen. These upgrades significantly enhance the security of international travel. This is one reason, for example, that all citizens from newly designated Visa Waiver Program (VWP) countries are required to travel on electronic passports.

Electronic passports, or e-passports, contain a biometric identifier, either a digitized photo of the bearer or fingerprints or both. Digitized photographs and other biometrics are important because they are harder to substitute or alter than glued or laminated photos, for example.

In addition, e-passports contain a microchip that holds the digitized photograph, fingerprints (if used) and other information visible on the passport data page. The data written to the chip is protected from alteration by the use of a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) digital signature. When an e-passport is scanned upon entry, the face of the traveler, the data on the data page, and the data on the chip will all match if the traveler is the person to whom the passport was issued. As a result, border officials are better able to intercept suspect travelers and speed entry of legitimate ones.

E-passports also incorporate several other, more technical security measures (such as watermarks and the like) to guard against fraud or other tampering. Just as important as the security of the document itself is compliance with international standards for reporting lost and stolen passports. The INTERPOL Stolen and Lost Travel Document (SLTD) database – which is the preferred repository for these reports – is used at primary passport inspection by countries around the world to detect those who travel on fraudulent documents.

The United States should continue its efforts to encourage countries to not only produce and issue secure travel documents, such as e-passports, but also, to establish a daily, automatic means of reporting lost and stolen passports to INTERPOL. Both of these measures are requirements of the U.S. VWP because they close gaps exploited by terrorists and other mala fide travelers. Indeed, the Iroquois themselves recognize the benefits of more secure documents, having nearly completed a transition to a new generation of passports.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Science & Technology, counterterrorism | Comments

Immigration Enforcement – What the Conventional Wisdom is Missing

Monday, July 12th, 2010

Enforcing criminal laws is always a matter of relative success and failure. Small increases or decreases in violent crime, drug trafficking, or white collar offenses are often seen, rightfully, as major accomplishments or setbacks. For some reason, however, immigration enforcement rarely gets treated the same way.

We often hear politicians say the United States “needs to enforce the law” or “secure the borders.” The fact of the matter is that our country has embarked on an unprecedented effort to enforce immigration laws and to secure the borders over the past five years. This effort crosses administrations and came when Congress was controlled by both parties.

To try to provide some context to the immense improvements in our immigration enforcement efforts, I issued a paper on June 28 outlining some of the most important enforcement enhancements. I released this paper under the auspices of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a left-leaning think tank that supports comprehensive immigration enforcement.

Obviously more needs to be done, including a mandatory employment enforcement system that requires federal legislation. However, the coverage of Southern border issues over the past several months might lead casual observers to believe that nothing has been accomplished since immigration was hotly debated in Congress during 2005, 2006 and 2007. The facts say otherwise.

The report was issued as part of a broader panel discussion at CAP.

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

The Value of Aspen

Friday, July 9th, 2010

As we continue to swelter in the ongoing summer heat wave, it is easy for me to reminisce about my recent visit to Aspen, Colo. Tucked amongst the Rockies with its clean air, fervent green and majestic views, a town known primarily for its skiing with the rich and famous was home to what was, simply put, the best conference program I have ever attended.

The first annual Aspen Security Forum put forward a program that I can only describe as pleasant, informational waterboarding. By the time each of the presenters and panelists were done, my hand was dead from writing so much and my head hurt from being given the firehouse treatment of a candor and content overload.

With a venerable “who’s who” of notable names in the national security arena attending the two and a half day program, attendees had the opportunity to hear first-hand from the men and women who have served or continue to serve in some of the most demanding positions in the world. It was literally very hard to turn around and not see a face that you did not recognize from some recent event or news program, sharing insights on our country’s national and homeland security challenges.

While the presented content was outstanding, the best part about the entire program was that the overwhelming majority of notable speakers and presenters made themselves available to engage with the attendees. All too often, speakers rush in, deliver their canned pitch, say thanks to the crowd and are whisked away by their aides to get back to the office, leaving actual human contact an afterthought. To have the many distinguished speakers stick around and engage in that lost art-form of “CONVERSATION” was an absolute pleasure.

Hosted by Clark Ervin and the Aspen Institute, this was the first time they had put on a program with this particular focus. You can call it beginner’s luck if you want, but they put together a top notch effort that literally became a “must attend” for anyone who is interested in national and homeland security issues. Fortunately, for those who weren’t able to attend the program, it was taped for later broadcast by C-Span, hopefully sometime this summer. I have to tell you, there is a significant portion of C-Span’s programming that can cure insomnia, but when they broadcast the presenters and panels from the Aspen Security Forum, it will be as NBC used to call it, “Must See TV!”

To understand why I write that, here’s a rundown of some sessions (with video hyperlinks):

Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

When your opening speaker travels all the way from Kabul to Tel Aviv to Aspen to take part in the program, it’s a pretty good indicator that the organizers are up to something big. That was especially true with Adm. Mullen. Coming off a week where Gen. McChrystal was taken out by a large Rolling Stone and replaced by Gen. Petraeus, and then traveling to Afghanistan and Israel to assuage any fears and concerns they may have about the big changes, Mullen made news by essentially not making news. While his comments about the state of the nation’s counter insurgency policy dovetailed those of the White House’s, the plainspoken manner in which they were delivered conveyed the gravity of the situation our military forces are faced with in Afghanistan. His comments about Iran’s nuclear ambitions – “They’ve given us no reason to trust them” – also spoke volumes about what few measures the Administration has left at its disposal in dealing with them.

Aviation Security Panel

There is probably no other facet of the post-9/11 world that Americans gripe about more than dealing with aviation security, but as the CEO of the Air Transport Association (ATA), Jim May, said, “What’s your alternative?” Joined by Erroll Southers of USC’s CREATE Program (and the first Obama Administration nominee to lead TSA) and Christopher Bidwell of the Airport Council International, this panel laid on the table the very real threats and frustrations that accompany this portion of the security environment. One of the most interesting things discussed was the use of full-body imaging devices by airports to screen passengers. While recognizing the civil rights and privacy concerns that people have about them, Jim May of ATA shared that he thought they should be mandatory. When it came to addressing the Government Accountability Office’s recently issued criticisms of TSA’s Behavioral Detection efforts, May and the other panelists pointed out that this program was part of many layers of security, and there was no one-size-fits-all solution or silver bullet that would reduce the aviation risks faced today.

Fran Townsend, former Homeland Security Advisor to President Bush

There are many things that have been written and said about Fran Townsend, the former Homeland Security Advisor to President Bush (43), but the word “shy” is not one that would be used to describe her. The only thing that could possibly surpass the candor of her public comments when she was working as a government employee was her candor in being a former government employee. With no holds barred, Townsend explained that, “We have a reason to expect we can connect the dots this time” given all of the post 9/11 work that has been done.

In a more than hour-long conversation with Walter Isaccson, the CEO of the Aspen Institute, and the Security Forum audience, Townsend pounded on the fact that much still needs to be done to improve information sharing amongst intelligence and law enforcement agencies across the board. Her declaration that there still needed to be a senior level official or “Cabinet Agency,” but “not a czar,” to “pound these government agencies into submission to do information sharing.” Her proposal that an NGO, public-private partnership, rather than a solely government-led approach to address the growing cyber security risks, was also interesting.

Bill Bratton, former Chief, Los Angeles Police Department

Dubbed by many media outlets as “America’s Top Cop” for having led the police departments of Boston, New York City and Los Angeles, I think Bill Bratton surprised everyone at the program when he explained how the terror attacks in Mumbai, India caused him to change the entire structure of the LAPD. His interview with CNN’s Jeanne Meserve detailed how 60 days after those attacks, he was able to transform his police department with new training, exercises and more. The relatively simply trained Mumbai terrorists were not interested in holding hostages; in fact, they were using so-called negotiations to buy time to kill more people. This showed Bratton that he had to change how his department was positioned to respond to a similar event, should it occur in Los Angeles.

Michael Leiter, Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center

For a man that much of Washington thought would have his head handed to him following the failed information sharing efforts surrounding the failed Christmas Day attack, Michael Leiter, the Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC), displayed all of the skill and confidence that make him one of a few Bush Administration appointees to successfully transition into the Obama Administration. His description of his job, his work with the President to report on the range of threats to the country and how he thinks information sharing needs to work made this particular presentation one of the most revealing and compelling of the entire program. Interviewed by Michael Isikoff, a former Newsweek reporter and now Chief Investigative Correspondent for NBC News, ended up producing some great back and forth between the two men that was as revealing as it was humorous. This session again explained more about Leiter’s job and the mission of the NCTC than any government report or Congressional hearing to date.

Border Security Panel

Despite the countless GAO and IG reports and the many hearings before the U.S. House and Senate, there was no better overview of America’s border security than a panel made up of:

Bob Mocny, Director of DHS’ US VISIT Program;
Mark Borkowski, Director of CBP’s Secure Border Initiative (SBI); and
Steve Oswald, Vice President of Boeing.

These three gentlemen described what worked, what didn’t, what could be better and what the future may look like on programs that have regularly been making news for years. In presenting the details of these newsworthy programs, they did so with none of the drama or hysterics that are so often associated with the Congressional hearings that have exhaustively covered the respective programs. What each of them said frankly offered more substantive insight than any of the previous Congressional hearings have produced to date. That was an observation made not just by the conference attendees but also by the first-tier media, congressional staff and others who have observed each of these respective programs closely. Truth be told, if you want to know what is really happening with US VISIT and the Secure Border Initiative (minus the belligerent questions and political posturing), spending 90 minutes watching this panel when it is aired on C-Span will be time well spent.

Attending News Media

As I mentioned, the conference was a literal “who’s who” of notable current and former national and homeland security leaders, and the same could be said for the attending members of the media. With CNN’s Jeanne Meserve, Fox News’ Catherine Herridge, the Washington Post’s Spencer Hsu, Newsweek’s/NBC News’ Michael Isikoff, and more, it seemed as if there was a representative from every major news outlet, print and broadcast media in attendance. While many of them were there to serve as session/panel moderators for the various parts of the program, the entire forum was a reservoir of information for them on today’s security concerns and a background on the actions of the past. It was also a treasure trove for journalists in developing future sources for national and homeland security news stories.

Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security

After consecutive 12-hour days of literally (albeit pleasantly) waterboarding attendees with tons of substantive content, it’s hard to figure out how to end a program such as that in Aspen, but they picked a great closer in former DHS Secretary Chertoff. Whether it was the fact that he’s been out of office for almost a year and half and doesn’t have to worry about a 2 AM phone call from National Operations Center about someone doing something vile to the homeland, Chertoff’s candor and demeanor crystallized for everyone the seriousness of the threats we face while also assuring we should continue to go about our regular lives. As one of the very few “senior statesmen” on homeland issues that we have in this country, his conversation with Fox News’ Catherine Herridge conveyed the balance that we need to have when planning for and operating against the range of risks we face.

A wondering disappointment

I can say without doubt that I loved every moment at the Aspen Institute, but I can’t sign off without discussing the one disappointment that I and many others had in the presentation by DHS Deputy Secretary, Jane Holl Lute. Whether it was her discomfort at the conversational interview format led by CNN’s Jeanne Meserve, her fear in the week after the McChrystal debacle, not wanting to say anything to cause problems for herself or the Administration, or the fact that maybe she was having a bad day, her presentation left the overwhelming majority of attendees scratching their heads in wonder as to the real story at the Department.

All of the questions that were asked by Meserve were fair and nothing was out of the ordinary, but Lute’s responses were defensive, sometimes evasive and could have been dramatically better. Time and time again in her hour long session there were questions to which she could have responded with hard and fast examples of the Department’s accomplishments. Instead, she offered simplistic, almost apple-pie like anecdotal responses that left the audience wondering why she wouldn’t answer the most basic of questions.

When she stated, “the [U.S.] border has never been more secure,” and offered no facts to prove that statement, portions of the audience looked around at one another in shock while others openly chortled at the declaration.

When it came time for Q&A with the audience, the tenor of her responses seemed to be even more defensive. When Michael Isikoff asked her about her statement on the border’s security and her metrics to prove that it had never been more secure, Lute seemed to bristle at the question. She firmly retorted, “The Secretary has been very clear on what those metrics are,” and effectively cut him off.

Lute’s response referred to the speech Secretary Napolitano delivered at CSIS the week before, when she declared, “the U.S. border has never been more secure…but there is more work to be done” and that “no one is satisfied with the status quo.”

In that speech, Secretary Napolitano detailed a series of metrics to back up her statement, but none of those were shared by Lute with Isikoff or the observing audience. In speaking with Isikoff and some of the other attendees after her remarks, none of them were aware of the CSIS speech and the metrics behind the powerful declaration. To the credit of the Department, Bob Mocny and Mark Borkowski did an exceptional job during their joint appearance on the Border Security panel explaining why DHS leadership is stating things have improved on the border.

It is certainly a debatable point to make a declaration like the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary have made in recent forums about border security. When you back it up with information and facts, it provides some measure of credibility and fosters informed debate. When you state it and don’t want to defend it with facts, it leaves people wondering why you would state something like that and not be able to prove it. After her appearance in Aspen, a lot of people were left wondering about the Deputy Secretary, and after viewing her session either on-line or on C-Span, I expect there will be a lot more.

Final thoughts

All of our time is valuable, and God knows we don’t have enough of it, but if you can set your DVRs to record the Aspen Security Forum or go to the Aspen Institute webpage and download panels for your Ipod/MP3 player – DO IT. Think of each of the respective sessions as graduate level courses shared by esteemed faculty who have the real life scar tissue and experiences to tell you what happened and what we can all do better. If you do, I’m confident you will walk away from each session with a lot more knowledge and a bit of a mild headache too. That’s what pleasant informational waterboarding will do to you, but I have to say, it is much more enjoyable amongst the mountains and beautiful vistas of Aspen.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Military & Homeland Defense, Private and Physical Security, Science & Technology, Supply Chain Security, Terror Finance, Terror Strategic Analysis, Transportation Security, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

“The US border has never been more secure”

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

Before a packed audience at CSIS, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano delivered what can only be described as a pointed and aggressive defense of the Obama Administration’s border security efforts. Declaring that “the US border has never been more secure…but there is more work to be done” and that “no one is satisfied with the status quo,” her “tough talk” about border security comes at a very interesting time.

With the Obama Administration poised to challenge in court the recently enacted tough Arizona immigration law, the ongoing southwest border violence and recent charges by Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) regarding a recent Oval Office meeting with the President about when immigration reform might be tackled, the Obama Administration rolled out their most experienced border expert to take on its critics and declare what had been done.

While I’ve never seen her campaign for elective office, I got the sense from her delivery that she was very happy to put on her boxing gloves and take on all comers. It was in essence a campaign speech to declare what had been done on the Administration’s watch and to make sure they knew the President and his team deserved credit for it.

Pointedly saying, “the numbers tell a story and don’t lie,” the Secretary detailed increases in border patrol hiring and deployments, increases in enforcement and deportations, and in technology deployments. The numbers were impressive and they do tell a positive story, but sitting in the audience, I and a number of other attendees noted that many of the investments and numbers she heralded were initiated by her predecessor, Michael Chertoff and the previous Administration. I haven’t had time to do it, but it would be an interesting side-by-side comparison to put the end-of-term Chertoff accomplishments against the numbers professed at CSIS. I’m sure the numbers have improved, but they were already trending in the right direction. Fortunately the Obama Administration has kept them going that way.

I’m sure that sounds like political pettiness (especially from a former DHS political appointee, as I was), but for as quick as this Administration is to blame the Bush Administration for all that is wrong in the world, there are a number of things for which they also deserve credit. Doubling the size of the border patrol and other investments are part of that legacy. I realize it is not in Sec. Napolitano’s job description to burnish the legacy of her predecessor or the previous Administration but a significant portion of what she crowed about at CSIS she inherited, and it has made a difference. If that sounds defensive, it was supposed too. The “facts also tell a story.”

In sending out the Administration’s strongest and most experienced voice on the southwest border, the White House through DHS is essentially taking head-on the criticisms of the 24-7 punditry (e.g. Fox News, etc.); Congress; and states like Arizona that are looking to follow with their own tough illegal immigration measures. Declaring several times that border security “is the responsibility of the federal government” and “we can’t have 50 different policies” for immigration, “smart actions” were the only thing that could solve the on-going border security problems that plague our nation.

To reinforce that point, Chief Rob Davis of the San Jose Police Department emphasized the challenge and confusion that he and other police departments face. “Do you want us [police officers] out looking for murderers, rapists and other bad guys or arresting illegal immigrants?” Explaining that his police department was facing a potential force reduction of 8 percent because of ongoing budget problems in California, he stated that communities across America were going to have to make a choice of what they wanted policed when resources such as his were becoming increasingly limited. And having 50 different immigration enforcement policies was not a suitable answer.

His point couldn’t have been driven home any better, and his call for the nation to produce a comprehensive immigration bill was just what the Secretary wanted to hear. Applauding his public service as well as his statement, Secretary Napolitano offered that until that was done by Congress, our border problems would continue.

Posted in Border Security, Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland State & Local, Immigration & Visa Policy, Management & Administration, Smuggling | Comments

Managing Large Enrollment Programs – Tougher Than it Looks

Tuesday, June 15th, 2010

By Michael T. Dougherty

It is an open question whether Congress will address comprehensive immigration reform legislation this year or find time to work on smaller immigration packages such as the DREAM Act or AgJOBS. If any legislation includes a pathway to citizenship for some or all the 10.8 million illegal immigrants that the Department of Homeland Security estimates reside in the United States, Congress should ensure that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the DHS agency responsible for administering immigration benefits and services, has the resources that it needs to promptly and accurately enroll that population.

In the enrollment, USCIS would be required to oversee the intake of immigrant applications and fees, collect biometrics, perform background security checks, conduct interviews, adjudicate applications, and issue identification cards – all while staying current with its existing caseload, which is both demanding and diverse.

USCIS has not experienced an enrollment event of comparable size – the nearest would be the surge of applications and petitions that occurred in the summer of 2007, when USCIS received around 3 million filings prompted by an increase in fees, the availability of employment-based visas, naturalization drives and perceptions that immigration enforcement would increase.

USCIS is not alone in facing the prospect of administering a large enrollment program. Other federal agencies have done the same, as have government agencies and ministries around the world. Perhaps none is as ambitious as the Indian government’s plan to issue unique identity numbers to 600 million residents by 2014 to better track and control the distribution of government benefits.

To understand enrollment dynamics, Raytheon Homeland Security studied reports and materials on 10 domestic enrollment programs occurring in the last 25 years.

We took away numerous lessons from our review. While different agencies administering different programs face distinctive challenges, they usually share several pressure points, including the need to speedily deliver benefits, documents, or other items of value to a very large number of people whose identity and eligibility must be accurately assessed; this while facing significant political scrutiny and heightened public expectations. On this last point, it should be remembered that individuals involved in an enrollment – whether hurricane victims, people needing credentials for work or travel or those seeking to adjust immigration status – are often experiencing their own set of pressures and anxieties. They understandably expect and need rapid results from government. With so much on the line, enrollments events can make or break an agency’s reputation.

Our review shows that there is no substitute for comprehensive planning. Agencies that have undertaken a rigorous and honest assessment of their own capabilities are best positioned to know what they need to maintain the integrity of the program without losing momentum. Modeling and simulation (M&S) tools can provide agency leaders with an objective means of measuring the readiness of the agency’s enterprise. This in turn helps them objectify acquisition requests and defend policy choices.
M&S also socializes frequently overlooked voices from field personnel – it is not always true that agency leaders access or understand what passes as common knowledge to line staff in operations. M&S helps build consensus among managers, protecting against stalls or reverses in program planning. If a model is properly framed and updated, it will remain a durable planning tool throughout an enrollment surge. It may also function as a tool for gathering metrics to accurately and rapidly report to executive and political leaders.

Immigration reform poses many difficult issues for Congress. One primary issue needing resolution will be the determination of how to provide resources to USCIS (which gets most of its budget through fee collections) in advance of the enrollment event so that USCIS can rapidly expand operations to meet the surge of applications sure to come.

Michael Dougherty, Director of Immigration Control with Raytheon Homeland Security, is the former Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman at the Department of Homeland Security.

Posted in Border Security, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Immigration & Visa Policy, International, Law Enforcement | Comments

Paris Joins Other Global Transit Hubs in Immigration Advisory Program

Monday, June 14th, 2010

On June 3, DHS announced that it had completed an agreement with France to implement the Immigration Advisory Program (IAP) at the Charles De Gaulle International Airport in Paris. When Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers are deployed later this summer, Paris will join Amsterdam, Frankfurt, London, Madrid, Tokyo and Seoul (among other locations) as places where the IAP operates.

The IAP enables the identification of high-risk travelers at foreign airports before they board aircraft bound for the United States. In effect, CBP officers stationed in the airport pre-screen travelers and make boarding recommendations to the host authorities. Some of these travelers may not be on watchlists but present other risk factors indicating the need for additional scrutiny.

One of IAP’s key objectives, for example, is to reduce the number of improperly documented passengers traveling from or through a country to the United States. To that end, IAP officers can interview the traveler at check-in to determine if he or she is the lawful bearer of the document or if there is fraud involved. In this way, IAP not only enhances security; it saves millions of dollars. The government avoids the costs associated with removal proceedings, and the airline avoids penalties and the costs of transporting the traveler back to the originating airport.

Not surprisingly, the airports at which IAP has a presence are global transit hubs. DHS should continue to work with these partners to export best security practices and standards more widely. For example, selected hubs (and host governments) could be offered the opportunity to participate in Registered Traveler programs, deploy interoperable screening technologies and collaborate on flights of mutual interest. Such cooperation would ultimately enable the United States and its partners to build a distributed border screening network that minimizes the ability of terrorists, criminals and illegal aliens to take advantage of stove-piped national border screening programs.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

Global Entry Expanding and Facilitating Travel

Friday, June 11th, 2010

In November 2009, DHS proposed establishing Global Entry – a pilot “trusted traveler” program – as a permanent fixture at U.S. airports. The final rule should be published soon, and in the meantime, the program continues to expand and facilitate international travel.

Global Entry currently operates at 20 U.S. airports and allows U.S. citizens entering the country by air to skip immigration lines in favor of kiosks. To enroll, citizens pay a fee, provide personal information and fingerprints, and submit to a security interview. When Global Entry members arrive in the United States, they go to a kiosk, place their fingerprints on a reader and exit the immigration area. Frequent international travelers can save significant time by avoiding the lines.

Last year, DHS’s Customs and Border Protection agency implemented an agreement with the Netherlands to allow Dutch citizens to participate in Global Entry. Global Entry is open to Dutch citizens enrolled in the Dutch trusted traveler program (called Privium), and U.S. citizens enrolled in Global Entry are eligible for Privium. U.S. citizens accordingly can skip immigration lines in the Netherlands if they are enrolled in Privium.

There are approximately 50,000 U.S. members of Global Entry and 40,000 Dutch members of Privium. These numbers are growing, as the programs are relatively new. The reciprocity arrangement between Global Entry and Privium is just a year old. Already more than 1000 of the Dutch Privium members have become Global Entry members, indicating that they intend to make regular trips to the United States and are willing to pay for the benefits of expedited travel.

The number of participants in these programs likely will continue to grow, particularly as Global Entry partnerships (like the U.S.-Netherlands partnership) expand beyond the Netherlands. In April this year, DHS announced that Germany will be the next partner country.

Additional partnerships create the possibility of expedited travel to multiple destinations – a business traveler from a new partner country may get expedited travel to the United States, the Netherlands, Germany, and additional countries, as those countries enter similar arrangements.

An international web of trusted traveler programs should be welcomed and encouraged, as it would facilitate both travel and security.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

Visa Waiver Program for Latin America

Thursday, June 10th, 2010

Among the issues awaiting Secretary of State Clinton on her trip to Latin America is U.S. immigration policy and combating narco-trafficking.
The Secretary could advance both issues while simultaneously stressing the Obama administration’s commitment to the Western Hemisphere by offering the prospect of Visa Waiver Program (VWP) membership to qualified Latin American countries. Currently, no country from the region is on the VWP list. (Argentina and Uruguay had been part of the VWP but were removed from the program in 2002 and 2003, respectively). This absence of our neighbors to the south is something that can and should be remedied.
Most countries in the region cannot be part of the VWP in the short term because they lack the infrastructure (and sometimes the will) to meet the requisite security and law enforcement standards. Specifically, to achieve and maintain VWP eligibility, countries must continually demonstrate strong document security standards, effective border security procedures and immigration controls, and excellent counterterrorism and law enforcement cooperation with the United States.
Several Latin American nations could be viable VWP candidates according to the above criteria and should be offered the prospect of program membership as an incentive to continue to upgrade their security and law enforcement capabilities and collaboration with the United States. In addition to the security and law enforcement benefits, doing so would pay public diplomacy dividends, enhance economic investment and build relationships with key international partners.

Posted in Border Security, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration | Comments

E-Verify Gets Critical Improvements but Still Lacks Identity Verification

Wednesday, June 9th, 2010

The Department of Homeland Security’s continued commitment to E-Verify is apparent from the new E-Verify re-design, which will be launching on Sunday, June 12, 2010.

The new re-design is a huge improvement in terms of the look and feel of the E-Verify program, giving users enhanced security, accuracy and efficiency. The USCIS team that developed the re-design focused on user needs identified through surveys and other feedback. The goal appeared to be simple: how can we make E-Verify a better, more intuitive and usable product for human resource managers?

If the preview information and government-sponsored webinars are any indication, USCIS has made significant progress. The new E-Verify design gives employers new tools, such as case alerts notifying managers that there are new updates about a case and reminders to re-verify expiring work authorization documents. Failing to close a case is one of the most common E-Verify errors, and the alerts should help remind managers to do that in a timely fashion.

The tickler for re-verification, contained in the E-Verify system, should help employers manage the re-verification process through a website that they are already using on a regular basis. The re-design also simplifies the process for E-Verify users by replacing many of the clunky, bureaucratic definitions contained on the site with plain English alternatives. As the USCIS website states, “you shouldn’t need a glossary” to conduct employment verification.

Unfortunately, the new system still does not address the most pressing need of many employers – an ability to address prevalent identity theft and false claims of U.S. citizenship. USCIS has made some substantial progress in this area, but employers should not and cannot rely on E-Verify as truly doing comprehensive “employment verification.” As such, it is critical that employers use the system in coordination with other tools to ensure unauthorized workers are not evading detection.

Employers should also be aware that the re-design gives the government additional information about how the employer manages its hiring process. For example, the re-design requires human resource managers to provide additional details about why a case is closed. In the old version, if an employee quit or was fired during the E-Verify process (for legitimate, non-E-Verify reasons), the human resource manager would indicate that the employee “self-terminated.” There was no place for the human resource manager to indicate that the employee was terminated by the company for other reasons.

Now, the E-Verify system will require the human resource manager to specifically indicate whether the employee voluntarily quit or whether the employer fired the employee for reasons unrelated to the E-Verify process. Given that USCIS is now sharing information from E-Verify with other government agencies, including the Office of Special Counsel at the Department of Justice and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the new detailed responses could, in certain circumstances, trigger an investigation by the government into the company.

For example, take an employer who appeared to be terminating a statistically high number of employees during the E-Verify process. You can imagine a scenario where this irregularity is referred to the Office of Special Counsel to ensure that the employer is not firing individuals for E-Verify tentative non-confirmations or other impermissible reasons. Even if the firings are legitimate (failed drug tests, etc.), the employer is likely to have to spend additional time and attorney resources responding to the investigation that was generated by their own information submitted to E-Verify.

Finally, even with the new tools, employers must guard against over-reliance on the automated assistance. For example, the re-design’s reminder system for documents that need to be re-verified should help human resource managers remember to conduct re-verification for expiring work authorization documents. However, the E-Verify system does not and cannot tell whether a human resource manager really re-verified the employee or whether they simply indicated on the alert that they did so. It is certainly possible for personnel to close or ignore the alerts out of carelessness, which could potentially cause significant harm for the company if ICE conducts an audit of the I-9s. In addition, corporate administrators overseeing the E-Verify process for a company cannot view all the re-verification alerts or track the system at this point.

Despite these shortcomings, overall the new re-design should be a welcome improvement for employers. The enhanced tools and information also demonstrate the broader DHS commitment to enhance the E-Verify system. This commitment is a positive sign that the government is serious about helping employers successfully determine employment verification.

For those interested in learning more about the redesign and new requirements, E-Verify will host an online webinar on Thursday, June 10, at 2:00 PM EDT.

Posted in Border Security, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Immigration & Visa Policy, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration | Comments

The Mavi Marmara and the Exodus 1947: A Historical Parallel?

Monday, June 7th, 2010

On July 11, 1947, a ship carrying more than 4,000 Jews sailed from the south of France and headed to Palestine. The Zionist movement endeavoring to create the State of Israel as a home for the Jews sought to “break the embargo imposed by Great Britain on immigration to Palestine.”

On July 18, British naval forces intercepted the ship and boarded it in international waters off the coast of Palestine. A clash ensued with the immigrants on board resulting in three deaths with more than 30 wounded. Britain faced worldwide condemnation for having used excessive force in dealing with the ship’s passengers.

The ship’s name was Exodus 1947, and it became the symbol of Jewish Aliya Bet. The international outrage forced the British to change their policy and in September 1947, the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish. With the departure of the last contingent of British forces from Palestine on May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of the State of Israel.

On May 30, 2010, more than 500 Palestinian activists and sympathizers sailed from Turkey aboard the Mavi Marmara ship as part of the “Free Gaza Flotilla” in an effort to “break the siege imposed by Israel on Gaza.”

On May 31, the Israeli Navy intercepted the ship, which was then boarded by Israeli commandoes. The clash that ensued resulted in the death of more than a dozen activists and approximately thirty wounded. Israel is facing worldwide condemnation for having used excessive force, and Palestinians and their supporters are vowing to continue the flotilla effort until the Gaza siege is lifted.

Will the Mavi Marmara end up having the same historical significance to Palestinians as did the Exodus 1947 for Jews? Only time will tell.

Cultural intelligence matters.

The Mavi Marmara and the Exodus 1947: A Historical Parallel?

Will the Mavi Marmara end up having the same historical significance to Palestinians as did the Exodus 1947 for Jews? Only time will tell.

Cultural intelligence matters.

Posted in Border Security, Intelligence, International, Management & Administration, Maritime & Seaport Security, counterterrorism | Comments

Cooper on Federal News Countdown

Monday, May 24th, 2010

Last week, I had an opportunity to speak with Federal News Radio’s Francis Rose about a variety of topics. We covered John Pistole’s nomination for TSA administrator, the Taliban’s plans for attacking our nation’s capital and of course, the ongoing discussion on immigration. You can listen to the broadcast by visiting the Federal News Countdown for May 21.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

Napolitano Eliminates Paper Arrival-Departure form

Friday, May 21st, 2010

Last week I pointed out both that the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) does not contribute to illegal immigration and that DHS has a functioning biographic air exit system.

This week Secretary Napolitano announced the elimination of the paper I-94W form (the green arrival/departure form long used by VWP travelers.) In doing so, she rightly commented that “The Visa Waiver Program facilitates secure and hassle-free travel for citizens of participating countries—making international travel safer and easier.” She could have just as easily pointed out that eliminating the paper form will improve the Department’s ability to match entry/exit records and calculate overstay rates.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Immigration & Visa Policy, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, counterterrorism | Comments

International Passenger Name Record Agreements Critical to Stopping Terrorists

Thursday, May 20th, 2010

On May 5, 2010, the newly empowered European Parliament issued its guidelines for beginning new negotiations on Passenger Name Record (PNR) agreements with the United States, Australia and Canada. This resolution received minimal coverage in the U.S. media, though its consequences for international travel security are potentially significant.

Criminals and terrorists know no borders, as recent arrests and uncovered plots prove. We have no choice but to cooperate with international partners and to deepen that cooperation wherever possible. The collection and analysis of PNR data – along with its counterpart Advance Passenger Information (API) – is a critical tool to identify and disrupt the travel of terrorists and other international criminals.

API and PNR are used to find watchlist matches; to provide leads on terrorist activity by providing links between known and unknown terrorist travel routes and patterns; to identify previously unknown associates of known or suspected terrorists and other criminals; and to discover fraudulent travel documents.

The PNR agreement between the United States and the European Union (EU) – the most recent version has been in effect since 2007 – provides a safe harbor for European-based airlines to provide PNR to DHS without conflicting with EU law. However, since its inception, the agreement has been plagued by the ongoing dispute over privacy between the United States and the EU.

The privacy issue has also affected the Treasury Department’s collection of bank transfer data on the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a program also known as “SWIFT, the name of the Belgian banking consortium that provided the data.)

The United States has endured much unfounded criticism in Europe on the subject of privacy and data protection. Specifically, EU critics charge American privacy laws with failing to provide appropriate redress to European citizens and that American privacy authorities lack the authority and independence necessary to protect personal information.

Unfortunately, the European Parliament’s direction to its negotiators continues to pick this fight, stating “the use of PNR data for law enforcement and security purposes must be in line with European data protection standards, in particular regarding purpose limitation, proportionality, legal redress, limitation of the amount of data to be collected and of the length of storage periods.”

For various legal, historical and cultural reasons, the U.S. privacy system has a different structure than its European counterpart, but the principles and goals remain the same. There are practices in the United States that might not conform to EU privacy rules, just as some EU practices would not be legal in the Untied States. These facts are not likely to change. More to the point, European governments have been cooperating on law enforcement and security issues with the United States for decades without compromising personal information or running afoul of national laws.

To date there has not been a noticeable privacy breech during our daily law enforcement and security cooperation at the operational level. The PNR agreement is no different. For the safety and security of the traveling public, it is in our mutual interest to move beyond tired debates about privacy standards. Instead, we should embrace the extensive amount of common ground between our systems and continue to share PNR and other critical information.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Border Security, Critical Infrastructure, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Private and Physical Security, counterterrorism | Comments

Another Mexico Victim: Mission Trips

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

With summer quickly approaching, many church groups are making plans for the various mission trips that they sponsor for adults and youth. For the people who participate in these annual trips, they are more than a chance to get away. They present opportunities to engage communities in the United States and around the world and work on various service projects that help their fellow human beings. In the United States, places like post-Katrina New Orleans, Appalachia and other areas with economic challenges and post-disaster problems have benefited for years from the fellowship of many hands repairing old structures, building new ones and bringing faith into action.

Mexico has also been a place where many mission trips have taken place. For years, churches of all types have traveled south of the border to aid impoverished communities with irrigation systems for farming, building construction and repairs, and other projects. These Mission trips are often times in addition to the trips sponsored by churches and other charities that bring healthcare services to people who can not afford it or do not have access to it. All of these actions are emblematic of the human charity and decency that every religion preaches and that we are all capable of achieving. Unfortunately, such grace and generosity has now become another victim of the on-going violence in Mexico’s increasingly bloody drug cartel wars.

Like those at my own church, Heritage Presbyterian in Alexandria, VA, mission trips planned for this summer are being canceled on account of the unrest south of the border. While there have been no publicized or direct threats made to specific missionaries or charitable groups, the uncontrollable violence makes each visiting mission trip a prime target by the warring drug cartels for kidnapping, assault and murder. In short, anyone and everyone is a target in Mexico.

Not a day goes by when gruesome headlines about the ongoing Mexican violence are not available for us to see. Furthermore, when U.S. consulate officials and Mexican public officials, police officers, military personnel and regular citizens are daily targets, there is no chance that well-intentioned Mission groups will not find themselves in the crosshairs of violence.

In hearing my church make its announcement about canceling this summer’s mission trip to Mexico, there was genuine heartbreak and disappointment at being forced to make this difficult decision. For the past several years, Heritage members have traveled to repair homes and improve infrastructure in Mexican villages while also assisting with healthcare and educational services, which are few and far between. Their efforts, like those of other congregations around America, have been an incredible lifeline to people who desperately need help.

While the needs of many of these people remain ever-present in Mexico, the ongoing violence makes it next to impossible to support any type of humanitarian service operation in that country. To go there puts the well-intended in harm’s way and risks bringing further pain and hardship to those who already have it hard enough.

Needless to say, it is politically sensitive for anyone in the U.S. government, particularly the U.S. State Department, to advise against visiting Mexico. As one of our country’s leading trading partners and a destination for thousands of American tourists, it would cause a firestorm of controversy if the Secretary of State where to step in front of a bank of microphones and say, “Stay away from Mexico.”

While the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security, Defense, etc. have all made numerous public comments about the unrest raging in our southern neighbor, political diplomacy necessitates carefully worded statements of support and warning about what is happening there. Furthermore, a declarative statement of the kind mentioned above would communicate a complete lack of confidence in Mexican President Calderon’s ability to secure his country. No one from the Obama Administration would understandably want to do that, but when communities of faith cannot go into a community to perform public service projects that serve those in dire need because they are not safe, you know how fragile the situation has become.

History records that people of faith have long risked their lives to promote their respective religion’s views, but few if any churches are willing to risk the lives of their members in today’s Mexico. When comparing that decision to those early missionaries who indeed risked it all for their faith, some might call such actions cowardice. It’s not. Rather, it is a painful act of courage in recognizing that there are those times when stepping forward to do good may cause more harm.

Heritage’s decision and that of other congregations is an uncomfortable realization that by going to Mexico, they risk giving the drug cartels an even more lucrative target – do-gooder Americans who can be kidnapped, ransomed and even murdered. If that were to occur, an already uncontrollable situation would become even more so. Staying away is the safest and most sensible option any mission organization can make under the current circumstances.

It is also a difficult decision because people who need a hand will not be getting it. They remain trapped in a culture of violence that spares no one. Their victimization is only further multiplied while hands across the border, ready to serve, remain out of reach.

Until this situation is ultimately resolved, there is only one thing the hands on both sides of the border can do. Pray for it to end.

Posted in Border Security, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Narcotics | Comments